Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

VAT

Mr. Barron: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the imposition of VAT.

Dr. Godman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received regarding the proposed imposition of 17.5 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel; and if he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I have received a large number of representations about VAT.

Mr. Barron: Is the Chancellor aware that a survey published today shows that many Conservative-controlled councils and their councillors have refused to support the Government's imposition of VAT on fuel, because, like many people, they believe that it does not recognise the ability to pay and therefore is grossly unfair? Will the Chancellor review that tax, withdraw it and take notice of what the country is saying—that millions of people believe that it should be stopped now?

Madam Speaker: I understand that question 5 is linked with this question.

Mr. Clarke: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Since the Act was passed, there has been—.[HON. MEMBERS: "We cannot hear."] The reason why people cannot hear me is that the microphones are not working.

Madam Speaker: If the microphones are not working, the Chancellor can raise his voice.

Mr. Clarke: I first came here when music hall was really music hall and us old troupers can make ourselves heard in the House when we try.
Since the Finance Act was passed, there has been a large campaign. I accept that many people, particularly the elderly, have been made quite fearful of the tax before it has been imposed. However, there was such a fall in gas and electricity prices during the 1980s that, even with the tax imposed in full, fuel bills will be no higher than they were 10 years ago. Moreover, the Government will come forward with a package of measures to help those who have difficulty paying the new tax. In my opinion, the sensible

approach for a House of Commons that passed the tax some months ago is to wait to see the package of help that will be forthcoming.

Dr. Godman: I was not informed of the linking of questions, Madam Speaker, I thought that it was a common parliamentary courtesy to be informed of such a linking.

Madam Speaker: Indeed it is. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to put his question now, though?

Dr. Godman: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you.

Dr. Godman: You are on top form again, Madam Speaker.
I have received many representations on the imposition of the tax. It is frightening many elderly people everywhere. Will the Chancellor give an assurance that he will fully protect those on low incomes, especially those on incomes that are just slightly above income support? It is a lousy rotten tax and it has caused a lot of fear among elderly people, particularly those on small occupational pensions.

Mr. Clarke: As I have said, we are all receiving a lot of representations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not join those who are arousing the real fears felt by people throughout the country. When my right hon. Friend announced the introduction of the tax we said that before it was introduced we would create a package of measures to give help to that section of the population who would have difficulty paying. That package will be announced at the usual time—my Budget statement.

Sir Terence Higgins: In framing his Budget will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the principles that guided lain Macleod and myself when we steered the original legislation on value added tax through the House? We believed that there should be only one positive rate of VAT, with relief through zero rating for those items of greatest importance to those on low incomes. If my right hon. and learned Friend decides that there should be a tax increase in the Budget—although at this stage of the economic cycle I think that that would be a mistake—before considering anything else will he introduce VAT on fuel at 17.5 per cent. immediately, with an adequate compensation package?

Mr. Clarke: I well remember my right hon. Friend steering VAT through the House of Commons—it was a controversial tax, although the replacement of purchase tax was popular. The measure did not enjoy a smooth passage then; I remember voting unsuccessfully with my right hon. Friend to try to exclude at least one of the zero-rated items. Although the initial measure was good, it was not perfect, and, since its introduction, successive Governments have, from time to time, extended its scope. In the climate of our commitment to the Rio targets and a need for more revenue in the spring of this year, it seemed logical and sensible to raise part of the revenue in the March Budget from that measure, with a promise of a package of help. Between now and 30 November, I will bear in mind my right hon. Friend's other representations about the Budget.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the people who are most worried about VAT on fuel are those who do not qualify for benefit? Will he give a complete and categorical assurance that those people's


interests will be taken into account? Will he promise that we will never again be given an announcement, then have to wait almost a year for the package?

Mr. Clarke: As to the assurance, I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says. While we wait for the package of measures, may I repeat that people should not arouse fears, but should explain to today's pensioners that the level of bills that they will pay will be no greater than those previously faced by pensioners. Some pensioners will receive help before the measure is introduced. As to introducing tax measures that do not take effect until 12 months or two years hence, my hon. Friend's political message is right. If we had immediately introduced the tax earlier this year, we would not be debating it in the autumn. It is the campaigning which has aroused feeling. The downside of that process is that it means that many hon. Members' long-standing hope that there should be more consultation about the details of complicated tax measures which Chancellors believe that they should introduce becomes ever less likely. The moment that one gives advance warning of anything in the British system one merely arouses noisy campaigns to try to stop the measure.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor confirm the report in the Financial Times that £600 million was wrongly paid in tax refund to the Kuwaiti Government—more than enough money to prevent any pensioner from having to pay VAT next year? Will he also confirm that if the loopholes, about which everyone knows, in the business expansion scheme, executive share options and advance corporation tax were closed, no family would have to pay VAT next year? He could announce the closure of those loopholes this afternoon. Is it incompetence that prevents the Government from acting, or is it that too many people who benefit from abusing the system are too close to the Conservative party?

Mr. Clarke: When we investigate the matter closely, to discover whether closing the hon. Gentleman's so-called loopholes would raise any revenue, it becomes obvious that that would be about as much use as brass washers. Individual tax issues are looked at in the ordinary way by the Inland Revenue, but the rules on sovereign immunity are partly determined by international law which cannot be repudiated. The hon. Gentleman's list of other so-called loopholes does not stand up to the slightest examination. He claimed that £1 billion could be raised by not abolishing stamp duty; we have not abolished stamp duty, so that is not relevant. The difficulty is that the Labour party, which was committed to high taxation, no longer knows whether it is. It tries to pretend to the country that it can get away with everything it promises by making claims about illusory loopholes being abused by millionaires. Examination shows that those loopholes do not exist.

Mr. Forman: Returning to the original question, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he realises that many Conservative Members would be pleased if he were to adopt a robust and reforming approach to VAT? In that context, is he aware that the broader the base of that tax, the lower can be the rates—other things being equal —and the simpler can be the structure?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: That has guided successive Governments and that is why both Labour and Conservative Governments have broadened the base over

the years. One improvement that the Government made when they first came in was to get rid of the separate bands which were much complained about after the Government's predecessors introduced them.
The important thing about the taxation burden is that it should be fair and should be bearable by the less well-off. The VAT on fuel provision in the March Budget was only one measure in a Budget where most of the revenue was to be gained from those in work, including the better off. Understandably, the campaign has focused on VAT on fuel, but it has been an exaggerated campaign which has aroused groundless fears among many people who are now feeling vulnerable about paying their heating bills.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to improve the competitiveness and capacity of Britain's manufacturing industries.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): The Government's role is to create the best climate for industry and to ensure that economic recovery is sustained through low inflation and sound public finances.

Mr. Michie: It is a pity that we have not yet seen the evidence of their success. When the Chancellor draws up the Budget, will he take note of the British shipping taxation proposals and create a level playing field for our merchant fleet, bearing in mind the terrible crisis in our shipbuilding at the moment?

Mr. Nelson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor met representatives of the shipping industry this week. I assure the hon. Gentleman that his representations will be taken carefully into account.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my hon. Friend confirm that during the past three years interest rates have gone down from 15 to 6 per cent. and that that has wiped £11 billion off interest charges for British industry? Is not that particularly helpful to manufacturing industry?

Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is right. That is £11 billion of cash flow going through businesses which otherwise would not have done. That must be added to the facts that unit wage costs have declined and that we have low inflation and a more competitive exchange rate. Our manufacturing industries, as well as other businesses, have the edge in competition at home and abroad.

Ms Eagle: Does the Minister realise with what cynicism the workers of Cammell Laird, who are listening to his reassurances about the future of British shipbuilding, treat his remarks? Despite assurances and pleas of sympathy from the Government, Cammell Laird has now closed and the rest of our once-great shipbuilding industry is under constant threat. It looks as though the legacy of the Government will be that Britain, as an island nation, will have no shipbuilding industry left. What value are the Minister's reassurances when the industry is being devastated?

Mr. Nelson: Of course, I understand the problems in the hon. Lady's constituency to which she refers. I acknowledge the importance of the shipbuilding industry


nationally, as well as the importance of other manufacturing industries which employ some 4.2 million people.
In the previous Budget, we introduced a number of measures, not the least of which was the time-limited enhancement on capital allowance. That was specifically to assist those industries and to enhance the export credit facilities that are available to them. We still have a shipbuilding capability, which admittedly is much smaller, but specialist. Some areas have benefited from orders from the defence and other spheres, and I hope that that will continue to be the case.

Unemployment

Dr. Liarn Fox: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what he attributes the fall in unemployment earlier than expected in the economic cycle.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Unemployment has fallen by 84,000 since January of this year. This may in part reflect the improvements that we have made to labour market flexibility as part of our supply-side reforms and our continuing efforts to keep the level of non-wage costs on employers down to levels lower than those in other European economies. Our opt-out from the social chapter is an important element in encouraging the growth of employment in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Fox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that as the economy gathers pace, it will do so not only because of the labour reforms of the 1980s but because of a whole range of supply-side reforms? Does he further accept that those reforms were totally opposed by the Opposition and have been possible only because we have had consistent and consecutive Conservative Governments?

Mr. Clarke: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. Not only have we improved the labour market, but we have created a much better climate for investment, for small businesses and for business start-ups and we were much more successful than most of our competitors in creating new jobs before the recession from which we are now emerging first struck us. Almost all the relevant measures were opposed by the Labour party, which still seeks to impose on us the costs of the social chapter. Labour still harks back to a regulated labour market and, as we saw only last night, its vision of the future is to keep in nationalisation the great traditional industries of this country.

Mr. Beith: Does the Chancellor realise that the rosy picture that he has painted is not true of the construction industry, in which the recovery is still very fragile? Has he noted the representations of construction employers, to the effect that as many as 100,000 jobs could be lost in the industry if there are cuts in capital expenditure in the Budget? Does he realise that this is the right stage in the cycle to ensure, if possible, higher capital expenditure in construction—expenditure that will bring rewards in terms of taxes paid by employees, fewer benefits paid out and assets obtained for the future at a good price?

Mr. Clarke: I am well aware of the troubled state of the construction industry. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is a matter for great concern. The Government sustained the level of public sector capital

investment in the last Budget and we are making great progress in delivering private sector investment in capital projects in the public services. We must certainly build on that. The recent placing of contracts for the Jubilee line shows what can be achieved and there are a number of other projects across the country in which private sector management skills and finance could boost capital investment and help the construction industry.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best way to protect and promote employment is to ensure that our industry is competitive by reducing unit costs and by precisely the sort of productivity improvements that have been and are being achieved by manufacturing industry? Is he aware that companies in my constituency are bringing over from Germany capital equipment that can be used profitably here to re-export goods? Because Germany is weighed down by the costs of the social chapter and other social costs, that is not possible there. Should not we therefore avoid the social chapter as far as possible, to enable our industry to be competitive? Do not the Opposition fail to recognise that?

Mr. Clarke: British industry's achievement—of continuing to improve productivity throughout 1993—is an extremely important basis for our strengthening recovery. Productivity increased by 41/2 per cent. That is an extremely good record which I am sure underlies our good performance in non-EC export markets. We will do better in our EC markets once our European competitors and their markets start to show the sort of recovery that is beginning here in Britain.
My hon. Friend's other message is one that we need to reiterate over and over again. German employers are envious of the conditions that we have created, which are more attractive for inward investment and the creation of new jobs.

VAT

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has recently held with representatives of the publishing industry concerning the widening of VAT.

The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): Treasury Ministers have recently met representatives from all sectors of the publishing industry and their views are being carefully considered in the preparations for the Budget.

Mr. Bennett: What income would the Government obtain if they imposed VAT on newspapers, books and magazines? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any estimate of the number of local newspapers that might close as a result of its imposition? What would happen to minority authors? How many books might not be published as a result and how many magazines would close? If the Minister addes up the figures perhaps he will agree that such a move would do far more damage to the spread of information and knowledge than benefit to the Treasury's revenues.

Sir John Cope: We have had suggestions of a large number of figures in answer to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I will not anticipate anything that my right hon. and learned Friend may want to say later.

Mr. James Hill: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has taken into consideration the fact that there is only one local paper in some areas and that, if they have to pay VAT, such papers are likely to go out of business. But they serve a community purpose. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will sympathetically consider single-paper areas such as Southampton.

Sir John Cope: That point has indeed been made in the representations to us.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Was not it an election pledge by the Conservative party that no VAT would be imposed on magazines, newspapers or books? Will the Minister confirm that the imposition of VAT on these items would be regressive, would fuel inflation and would lead to the direct loss of well over 20,000 jobs? Will he also confirm that the same sum of money could be raised without any of these consequences if the Government blocked the inheritance tax loopholes that are abused by the very wealthy?

Sir John Cope: Once again the hon. Gentleman is trying to say that everything can be done by stopping-up tax avoidance in some way. He knows perfectly well, as I do, that every Finance Bill that has ever been introduced has involved closing loopholes. He is chasing a mirage. Of course the figures that he mentioned have been brought to our attention in the various representations to which I referred.

Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the publishing community's campaign against VAT on books would be a jolly sight more convincing if it were prepared to scrap the net book agreement that has pushed up and keeps up book prices?

Sir John Cope: I realise the point made by my hon. Friend, but I do not think that it arises in this context.

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much an average family paid per week in VAT in (a) 1979 and (b) 1993.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): A couple with two children on average earnings paid VAT of £12.95 per week at today's prices in 1979–80 and an estimated £19.30 per week in 1993–94.

Mr. Mullin: Is not it clear that the public have been conned and that for four general elections the Conservative party has posed as the party of low taxation that cuts taxation, but has been quietly transferring the burden of tax from income tax to VAT? Is not it the truth that taxation has gone up under the Conservatives and is not that because it is expensive to maintain 3 million people who are permanently out of work? Is not the best way to cut tax to cut unemployment?

Mr. Dorrell: To take up the hon. Gentleman's phrase, the truth is that since 1979, we have been improving living standards for British people, which is what matters. Since 1979, take-home pay measured in today's terms for the same family to which the hon. Gentleman referred has risen by £81.50 a week. The hon. Gentleman is right that £6.35 of that increase has gone to pay VAT, but the other £75 a week has gone to improve living standards.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that VAT is an essential aspect of spending-side economics and that

if we did not have the income from VAT we would not be able to meet the spending programmes, especially those in which the Opposition are constantly demanding increases?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right that VAT is, under this Government, and was under our predecessors, an important part of the total revenue-raising package. I ask the House to reflect on the significance of the fact that in Labour's Britain the standard rate of tax on a wage-earner involved in wealth creation was 33 per cent., while the standard rate of VAT on spending was 8 per cent. I should have thought that in a society where wealth creation was regarded as important, we would want—as the Government have—to cut the rate of tax on wealth creation even if that means an increase in the rate of tax on spending.

Mr. Marlow: Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to give an assurance that there is no way in which the Government will consider imposing more VAT on families in Britain if, later in the next Session, the Government intend to bring forward a Bill to re-route more taxpayers' money through Brussels to corrupt regimes in southern Europe so that hands may be greased and money can find its way into the pockets of some people's cronies?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend has introduced a general all-purpose question on taxation. I do not propose to get involved in speculation about our future tax policy. As for our obligations to our European partners, I am sure that my hon. Friend would want us to honour obligations entered into by the Government of the United Kingdom.

Ms Harman: Does the hon. Gentleman still refuse to recognise that VAT on gas and electricity is even more unpopular than the poll tax? Does he realise that it is dreaded by the public and that now 1,000 Tory councillors are backing Labour's demand that the Government should drop it? The Chancellor has a choice: either he can ditch it in his 30 November Budget or see it go down in the Finance Bill. Which is it to be?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady is scraping the bottom of the barrel in suggesting that our tax policy should be determined by the views of individual councillors. The one thing that all sides should agree about is that tax policy should be decided by the House. The Government's proposals for VAT on fuel and power have been repeatedly endorsed by the House. It is the House which makes that decision, not councils.

Mr. Sheldon: Is not the important aspect of value added tax the fact that until the recent decision to impose it on fuel and power, it was broadly neutral? That was because of zero rating. All other taxes except income tax are regressive, which means that VAT hurts most those who are least well off. As I have said, income tax is our only progressive tax, and the Government are determined to reduce that to help the most well off.

Mr. Dorrell: I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that it was the Liberal Deomcrats and not the Government who described the exemption of fuel and power from VAT as an anomaly. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) proposed the introduction of an energy tax and asked the public to write to him with their reactions. Perhaps some of the letters that The Sun suggests should be written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor should be addressed to that


hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, I think, that it was not the Government but the Institute for Fiscal Studies which analysed the income distribution effect of the last Budget, and concluded that it was broadly neutral across all income groups.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition are missing the key point, which is that as we changed the structure of direct and indirect tax we lowered the indirect taxation level, leaving most people with money to spend? That is one of the key reasons why we shall move faster as we come out of recession than our European counterparts who have failed to learn that lesson.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right: not for the first time, the Opposition are missing the point. He is also right to draw attention to the fact that the prime objective of tax policy must surely be to encourage wealth creation. We cut the marginal rate of tax on wealth creation because we want to make people better off. That is why the man on average earnings with two children now enjoys take-home pay that is £81.50 a week higher than it was in 1979.

Trade Deficit

Mr. Enright: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the deficit on visible trade for the first seven months of (a) 1993 and (b) 1992.

The Chief Secretary io the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): The visible trade deficit was £8.75 billion in the first seven months of this year and £7 billion in the first seven months of last year.

Mr. Enright: Are not those figures deeply depressing, especially in view of the huge sums of taxpayers' money that were poured down the drain last year to devalue the pound and make us more competitive? Does not the Chief Secretary agree that it is crucial for us to sell more if we are to have a cat in hell's chance of a sustained non-inflationary recovery?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman shows unusual enlightenment for an Opposition Member when he says that the crux of the matter is that we should sell more. The Government are concerned to make Britain more competitive. That is why we have kept Britain out of the social chapter. The hon. Gentleman's party is concerned to make Britain as uncompetitive as possible. I hope that, like me, he takes pleasure from the fact that during the past year our exports to areas outside the European Community rose by 11 per cent. and that Britain is more competitive. I hope that he will join me in saying that those are good achievements.

Mr. John Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of yesterday's Touche Ross report on business prospects in Yorkshire and Humberside which points to clear signs of economic recovery in that region? As the economic recovery gathers pace, enabling us to make an impact on our trade balance, does he agree that the Government's policy must be to continue to bear down on inflation and encourage greater productivity and competitiveness in British industry?

Mr. Portillo: I am, indeed, pleased with the results of that survey. Recently, British management has got on top of its costs. Unit wage costs in this country have been

falling while they have continued to rise in Japan and Germany. Our productivity is at record levels. Manufacturing productivity growth in Britain has been the strongest of all the G7 countries during the past year. Those are great achievements, and they offer good prospects for British industry.

Dr. Berry: Is the Chief Secretary aware that we have never had such a large trade deficit at this point in the business cycle, and that, for the first time ever, we have a record trade deficit in the midst of a recession? Who does he believe to be responsible for that?

Mr. Portillo: I would prefer the deficit to be less than it is. However, I notice that foreign investors are showing great confidence in our country. They are investing more in Britain through inward investment than they are in any other European country. We are benefiting from one third of all the inward investment coming into the European Community, and foreign investors are also willing to buy our stocks and gilts. That shows that the trade deficit is fundable and I believe that the Government should continue to pursue policies that make Britain more competitive and also act on the fiscal deficit to bring it down.

Public Spending

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to cut public spending.

Mr. Portillo: The Cabinet agreed in June to stick within existing ceilings for the new control total for the next two years, and to allow a maximum growth of 1 per cent. in 1996–97. Our spending plans will be set out in the Budget on 30 November.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that every function of Government should be examined for possible savings? Is he aware that millions of pounds could be saved by reducing the size of the civil service bureaucracy, that £5 million could be saved by abolishing the unnecessary Equal Opportunities Commission and that further savings could be made by putting a stop to the absurd inquiry by British policemen into alleged war crimes in the Falklands? Many people are outraged by that inquiry, and feel that it should be ceased forthwith.

Mr. Portillo: As is his wont, my hon. Friend chooses some controversial topics to raise and, as one who likes to avoid controversy as much as possible, I shall not follow him down those lines of inquiry. However, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's basic point, which is that we need carefully to scrutinise what Government do to ensure that the Government do only what is necessary and that they pass to the private sector that which they do not need to do. That is the basis of the fundamental reviews being conducted into a number of Departments at the moment, which will be extended to other Departments in the new year.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that if we are to rid ourselves of the scourge of mass unemployment, rather than reducing public expenditure, the Government should be increasing it and introducing exchange and import controls to stop 20 million tonnes of coal coming into Britain? We should be exporting coal. In case the Minister is going to ask me how we bridge the gap on the public


sector borrowing requirement, I shall tell him now. We should be taxing the rich, the richest 5 per cent. of whom have had more than £50 billion in the past 14 Tory Government years. That is the way to resolve the problem, not by imposing VAT on fuel and light for the elderly and others in Britain.

Mr. Portillo: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member. His is the authentic voice of the Labour party and I am pleased that, at this Question Time, he has reaffirmed that the policy of the Labour party is to raise taxes and increase public spending and controls. I am sure that he will join me in the pleasure that I feel that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has retained her place in the shadow Cabinet because I believe that she, too, is sympathetic to all those policies.

Retail Sales

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much retail sales rose in the last three months for which figures are available against the same three months in the previous year; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In the three months ending September, the volume of retail sales was nearly 4 per cent. higher than a year earlier, and at record levels.

Mr. Dunn: Do not the encouraging sales figures underline the current EC forecast that Britain's economy will grow faster than any other EC country, both this year and next year, and that this, taken alongside other positive economic indicators, means that we are now facing a sustained economic recovery?

Mr. Clarke: Yes, we are the only major European country that seems likely to record growth this year. There has now been growth for six successive quarters. Most forecasters expect that it will strengthen somewhat next year. That steadily rising level of consumer demand is reasonably encouraging. I therefore reinforce my hon. Friend's message and point out to him that this morning's figures for new car registrations–15 per cent. up on 12 months ago—are a further encouraging feature. We have a long way to go, but the recovery is very much there and shows every prospect of strengthening ahead of our European partners next year.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is literally taxing consumers until the pips squeak, by imposing VAT on fresh orange juice, will not retail sales be depressed and jobs destroyed in that rapidly growing industry? Is it not the case that the Government extend VAT in a knee-jerk reaction to their financial incompetence? Will not the public fear that that orange juice VAT is just the first course in a whole menu of Government VAT on food? Should not the Chancellor tell us now that there will be no imposition of VAT on any further food products?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman knows that the measure that we passed last night, in the middle of a number of another type of votes that attracted more attention at the time, was a minor technical change. We have always taxed manufactured fruit juice in this country. There was a dispute and there have been tribunal cases about whether orange juice produced in factories was a manufactured fruit juice. When the matter was scrutinised

in Committee it took about half an hour and the vote last night was eminently sensible and fair to apple juice producers. [Interruption.]
The Labour party has abandoned its previous economic policies and its previous proposals because they proved to be unpopular, but it cannot substitute for that all the nonsense about paying for everything out of non-existent loopholes and scratching around trying to build cases against technical amendments taken late at night.

Sir Peter Tapsell: While I fully support my right hon. and learned Friend's declared determination to reduce the fiscal deficit, I urge him to compensate for the deflationary effects that that is likely to have on retail sales by reducing our interest rates to nearer the much lower levels of Japan and the United States. There, real interest rates are less than half those in this country, even allowing for the somewhat pessimistic recent forecasts of the Bank of England about future inflationary trends here.

Mr. Clarke: We shall continue to determine monetary policy following the guidelines that we set out as a necessary discipline upon ourselves after our withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism. There has been a steady reduction in interest rates in this country for a considerable time—about two years. That has helped to boost the recovery here and we shall have to ensure that the right conditions are retained here. We continue to have some of the lowest interest rates in the European Community and we are sustaining the strongest level of growth of any major economy within the Community.

VAT

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage of total Government revenue raised by value added tax (a) in 1978–79 and (b) in 1992–93.

Sir John Cope: VAT accounted for 7.3 per cent. of general Government receipts in 1978–79 and 16.9 per cent. in 1992–93.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister comment on figures that were quoted in the May 1993 issue of Economic Trends? Those figures showed that as household disposable income decreases the proportion paid in VAT increases and that although the top 10 per cent. of the population pay 6.1 per cent. of their net income in value added tax, the bottom 10 per cent. pay 11.5 per cent. of their income. Does not that mean that any increase in VAT will hit the poor twice as hard as it hits the rich?

Sir John Cope: No, it does not necessarily mean that. It depends how it is done and what is done. In any case, it is well known that the Government's policy has been to shift some of the weight of taxation from direct to indirect taxation, and the hon. Gentlemen has enabled me to demonstrate how we have been doing that.

Sir Michael Neubert: What estimate does my right hon. Friend make of the VAT that is lost as a result of builders operating legally, and in a significant number of cases illegally, under the VAT exempt ceilling and, worse, those in the black economy evading tax altogether? In view of the critical need to reduce the current deficit, what action will he take to recover that revenue and restore fair competition to the building industry?

Sir John Cope: There has always been some argument about where we should fix the bottom level of VAT for that purpose—the turnover level. Those immediately above it tend to argue that it should be increased; those who feel that it would not be increased sufficiently to include them would, on the whole, like it moved further down to ensure that the smallest firms and one-man businesses are 'within the net. We try to reach a balanced judgment between those two pressures to fix the bottom level of VAT so that there is not too much burden either on the Customs and Excise in collecting it or on industry in filling in the forms. However, at the same time, we collect as much VAT as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appropriate conditions and criteria for adoption policy should be common sense and the interests of children, not the curse of politically correct thinking? Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Secretary of State for Health on her statement yesterday that makes a clear preference in adoption policy for married couples?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement yesterday. I agree with what my hon. Friend has to say about the importance of common sense in adoption policy. There is no place for ideology in adoption; it is not about social engineering but about providing loving homes for children in need.

Mr. John Smith: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether, following the discussions in Belfast yesterday and the reported comments by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, there is unlikely to be an early resumption of all-party talks among the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland? After the tragic events of recent days, is not there an inescapable moral obligation on all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to co-operate in a new dialogue without hesitation or reservation, and for the Government to make that point clearly and firmly to them all?

The Prime Minister: I very much hope that it will be possible for the talks to resume, and I shall be meeting the leaders of all the constitutional parties over the next few days. My right hon. and learned Friend and I certainly hope to resume those talks as speedily as possible.

Mr. John Smith: While I appreciate the importance that was rightly attached to dialogue between the Governments and to a proper response to the initiative taken by the Irish Government recently, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will take the lead at the

earliest opportunity to call together the constitutional parties so that what might be a window of opportunity is not lost?

The Prime Minister: As I said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am seeing the leaders of the parties individually in the hope that we can map out a suitable ground so that the talks can resume. I very much hope that that will be possible. However, I do not want an artificially staged event where the talks are called together with no probability of making progress. In my private discussions with the leaders of the constitutional parties, I hope that we can find a way through that will enable talks to resume with a practical chance of proper progress.

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Evans: Did my right hon. Friend see an article on social security fraud in the Daily Express last week, which estimated social security fraud to be somewhere in the region of £5 billion? It mentioned multiple applications using false identities, phantom children and minicab moonlighting. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House today that he will take whatever action is necessary to stamp out social security fraud, including the use of ID cards for claimants?

The Prime Minister: Like my hon. Friend, I am attracted to the principle of identity cards to combat social security fraud. Of course, there are some practical and serious issues that need to be resolved, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are examining the matter extremely carefully. We will certainly keep up the pressure on social security fraud. We refer to it as fraud, but in practice it is theft from the taxpayer.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister has a justified reputation for his skill as a negotiator—[Interruption.] Does he realise—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members are hoping to be called and such interruptions are very time consuming.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how important it is that he should take personal charge of Britain's efforts to achieve peace in Northern Ireland? In the light of his remarks a moment ago, is that what he has decided to do?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly taking a very direct interest, together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the possibility of moving towards a proper peace in Northern Ireland. By that, I do not just mean a temporary ceasefire. What the people of Northern Ireland need and deserve is a permanent end to the hostilities and movement towards a proper constitutional structure for local government within Northern Ireland. On the question of negotiation, that is rather like poker—it is best to keep one's hand to oneself for as long as possible.

Mr. Milligan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Milligan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is hardly surprising that football hooliganism is so prevalent in this country when Labour Members provide the role model that they did during last night's debate? They used lavatorial antics to divert attention away from some of the real issues that should have been debated—in particular, the future of the railway pension fund.
Will my right hon. Friend repeat the assurance that railway pensioners will continue to enjoy precisely the same benefits as they have hitherto and that on the one outstanding issue the Government will continue to seek the agreement of the railway trustees and report back to this House before orders introducing the new pension fund are laid?

The Prime Minister: There were some unusual scenes last night, but perhaps it is best not to dwell on them—not least because I wish to spare the embarrassment of the Opposition Chief Whip and his colleagues.
On my hon. Friend's substantive point, the Government remain committed to protecting the security of the pension rights of existing, deferred and future British Rail pensioners affected by our privatisation proposals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made that clear on innumerable occasions and I am happy to make it clear yet again this afternoon.

Mr. Mallon: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the objective of his talks with the Irish Prime Minister, Mr. Reynolds, is to facilitate an agreement among the divided people of Ireland that can command the respect of each sector of that diversity and command the support of everyone within the island of Ireland?

The Prime Minister: The Taoiseach and I have made clear our view of the direction in which the talks need to go and what needs to be achieved. It is helpful that the principle of consent has now been acknowledged for Northern Ireland. That is vital if progress is to be made. It is a noticeable advance—as, indeed, was the speech of the Tanaiste last week.

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that political correctness, so called, has become a pernicious exercise in social engineering that undermines traditional decencies and codes of conduct? Can he confirm that we are the party of "Mrs", "Miss" and "Chairman" and that we will have nothing to do with anyone who describes himself as "Chairperson", "Chairholder" or "Chair"?

The Prime Minister: In the House we have a Madam Speaker. I believe that that is right.

Mr. Canavan: Is it true that the Government are now considering another U-turn and, introducing a Bill to abolish the House of Lords?

The Prime Minister: No.

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the 10 years since British Telecom became a private company, it has become more efficient, offers greatly improved services and now, under the pressure of competition, is reducing its prices? Is not it a fact that that has been achieved because of privatisation? Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that one day those who opposed the privatisation will admit that they were wrong?

The Prime Minister: I live in hope, but perhaps not quite as much hope as that. There is no doubt that privatisation has produced better services from BT—prices have fallen dramatically, there are more payphones, in better condition and more speedily repaired when vandalised, and installations are carried out more efficiently. With the solitary exception of the Labour party, everyone recognises the improvements brought about by privatisation. Perhaps that is a little unfair to the Labour party; I neglected to mention that the Liberal Democrats are another exception.

Mrs. Adams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Adams: Does the Prime Minister recall that the last time I asked him a question in Parliament, I asked him to give a guarantee that he would not increase value added tax? The Prime Minister gave me his word that he would not. He has since broken his promise and increased VAT by putting it on domestic fuel, which will undoubtedly cause great hardship to many pensioners and ordinary families. Why did the Prime Minister give me, and the country, his word and then not keep it?

The Prime Minister: From the innumerable times that this question has been answered, the hon. Lady knows that we will protect people who are vulnerable. She would be well advised to wait until she hears what those protection measures will be.

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend remember the unlamented Greater London council, with its very high taxation on Londoners and its massive and damaging bureaucracy? Has he heard the calls for higher taxation for Londoners, on cinema seats, on videos, on tourists, on businesses, on jobs and on much else? Is he aware that calls for a mark 2 Greater London council, and a large number of taxes in a wide range of areas, are now being made by the ever-loony Labour party?

The Prime Minister: Over the last few weeks the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), on a national level, has moved the Labour party's position from no more taxes, to some more taxes, to lots more taxes. It is hardly surprising that in London the Labour party wants more


layers of bureaucracy; it also wants it in the regions, in Scotland and in Wales. It is not the way to produce efficient government, but it is their policy.

Mr. Tyler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Tyler: Does the Prime Minister recall visiting north Cornwall exactly nine months ago to the day and promising my constituents that he would take action to halt the inexorable rise in water and sewage charges—not this year or next year but as soon as he possibly could, and certainly not at the end of the century? How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that undertaking with the United Kingdom's £500 million contribution to the EC cohesion fund, which will be used to clean up the water and sewage problems of Portugal, Greece and Spain?

The Prime Minister: I begin to suspect that it must be 1 April. The hon. Gentleman should remember his party's remarks about the cohesion fund at the time that we debated the matter and the moral support that it gave the richer nations of Europe in providing a cohesion fund for the smaller nations. This is yet another example of the Liberals saying one thing in one place and something else in another.

Mr. Sykes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sykes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on his announcement yesterday about sending squatters to gaol if they do not leave the premises in question within a specified time limit?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend has set out some proposals to deal with that problem, which has been a frustration for many people for far too long. Some time ago, we indicated that we would take firm action to deal with the problem. My right hon. and learned Friend has now set out our proposals.

Mr. Barron: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the country how his Government got into a shambolic mess yesterday over the railways privatisation Bill? Despite those events, next week and the week after five sitting days will not be used.

The Prime Minister: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman was last night, but clearly he was not in the real world, in here. The leader of the Labour party speaks fine words about the need to improve standards in public life, but he let some of his colleagues below the Gangway behave in a way that disgraced Parliament.

Regional and Urban Policy

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): It is widely agreed that there is considerable scope locally to bring Government programmes and Departments together. They should be more responsive to local needs and acceptable to local people. We acknowledged that in our manifesto. Today, I am announcing changes to bring that about through a new single budget and new integrated regional offices in England. This signals an important shift from the centre to the localities.
I am making this announcement on behalf of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport, the Secretary of State for Education and the President of the Board of Trade, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
From April next year, we are establishing a new single budget for regeneration and development. It will combine 20 separate programmes worth, on current plans, some £1.4 billion. Continuing commitments under those programmes will be met.
We intend to consult widely about how the budget will work in each locality and how bidding arrangements will operate, but in most cases we expect that bids will come from partnerships within the local community and that local authorities and training and enterprise councils will take the lead in assembling partnerships and putting forward bids. However, we want to encourage local innovation and imagination, so there is no intention of excluding other bodies from promoting bids.
The budget will mean that priorities are set locally in the light of local needs, not in Whitehall. It will give local authorities, businesses and local communities real influence over spending priorities. The budget will help to mobilise public-sector money and will complement the provision of business support services. It will support measures to improve education and training, tackle crime, meet ethnic minority needs and improve rundown housing. Those measures will be combined in a comprehensive way to meet local needs.
I shall be accountable to Parliament for the budget. I and colleagues will sit on a new ministerial committee for regeneration which will oversee the budget. At the same time as introducing the budget, we shall bring together the existing regional offices of the Department of Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Employment and the Department of the Environment.
We will therefore meet the widespread demand that there should be a single point of contact for local authorities, businesses and local communities. That will provide a better service without increasing the power or cost of central Government one iota. In fact, there should be some room for savings in overhead costs.
The new integrated offices will administer the single budget and will be responsible for the other departmental programmes that, at present, are operated by individual regional offices. Ministerial responsibility to Parliament for programmes not in the single budget will be unchanged.
Each office will be headed by a senior regional director, who will be accountable to the relevant Secretary of State for programmes carried out by his office, and to me for the single budget.
With the new offices, the Government's response to the needs of localities will be better informed. The various elements—housing, training, business support and transport—will be considered together, and local priorities emphasised in the advice that is given to Ministers. Local needs, rather than departmental interests, will be the prime consideration.
As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has now heard me talk about the new budget and offices, he will be less inclined to accuse me of a sinister act of centralisation. He will see that we are devolving responsibility from Whitehall. We are cutting back red tape and bureaucracy. We are making it easier for local people, business men, local authorities and training and enterprise councils to talk to Government.
Training and enterprise councils will be key private-sector partners with the new offices for the full range of regeneration and economic development activities in their localities. To help with that, a team of sponsor Ministers will continue their links with our major cities and other areas. They will support regeneration initiatives, advise the new offices and raise local issues in Whitehall. I have placed a copy of the revised list of sponsor Ministers in the Library.
I am issuing a challenge to the civic and business leaders of our three greatest cities of international standing—London, Birmingham and Manchester.

Mr. Bob Cryer: What about Bradford?

Mr. Gummer: They were chosen simply because they happen to be the largest cities in England.
I want the civic and business leaders to get together with their private and public-sector partners to define their vision and to set up what practical steps can be taken to build on the strengths of their areas and on the things that they believe most command their areas.
This is not some arid planning exercise or an open invitation to bid for more resources. Central and local government, as well as the private sector, will continue to spend large sums of money in the cities.
City pride is about making the most of the investment and providing a lasting foundation for growth. I am sure that London, Birmingham and Manchester will rise to the challenge. We will concentrate first on those cities to pilot city pride, but if other cities want to adopt the approach, I would not want to dissuade them.
We have already achieved great successes. Initiatives such as city challenge and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's new business link scheme have shown what can be accomplished when local authorities, businesses, local communities and voluntary groups work together. I am pleased to see that, at least in one respect, the Labour party's plan for London underlines the fact that it has taken over some of the Government's belief in partnerships. The TECs have brought about the most significant partnership between Government and industry for decades.
The single budget and integrated regional offices will make Government more accessible and responsive. We shall be altering the balance from the centre to the localities. That will give new opportunities for partnerships to create prosperity and to build on local strengths.

Mr. Jack Straw: We welcome any measures that improve the relationship between central and local government. We, and Labour local councils, will strive hard to ensure that these arrangements work.
But the Secretary of State must surely understand that after 14 years—during which 144 separate Acts of Parliament have removed one power after another and have taken control of £24 billion of public spending from democratic local government to unaccountable quangos and Government offices and during which time Government have taken control of every council budget —councils and the communities who elect them are right to be highly sceptical about the Government's motives.
In his press statement, the Secretary of State said that these were
sweeping measures to shift power from Whitehall to local communities.
If that is, at long last, an admission by the Secretary of State that he and his colleagues have, over the past 14 years, centralised on a scale unknown in western Europe, we shall be the first to cheer. However, does the Secretary of State not understand that, if his words are to have any meaning, universal budget capping must be removed, the right of councils to spend their £5,000 million of capital receipts—their money, but locked in a bank by Government order—must be reinstated, and the vast and growing network of quangos packed with Tory placemen, and the odd Tory placewoman, has to be dismantled? Is it not true that the Secretary of State's announcement highlights the democratic deficit that is undermining the whole of our political system?
Does the Secretary of State agree with the following words from a pamphlet published several years ago, dealing with the case for elected regional government:
The decision makers who are handling … regional problems … are not answerable to any elected representatives … A democracy is not healthy if large geographical areas or important sections of opinion feel that the Government is remote or not open to question"?
The writer suggested that the answer was "elected regional authorities". Would the Secretary of State like to know that those words were written by the then secretary of the Birmingham Bow Group and prospective Conservative candidate for Rushcliffe, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He wrote them in a fine pamphlet; his advice then was right, but his current view is wrong.
At the Conservative party conference last month, the Secretary of State said that he would
consult Londoners on what they want for their city".
Is he therefore going to listen to the compelling evidence published today which shows that four out of five Londoners want an elected strategic authority for their city?
On the new budget arrangements, the Secretary of State had some carefully crafted words about the cash available. He said that the programmes were
worth on current plans some £1.4 billion. Continuing commitments under these programmes will be met".
What is the value of those "continuing commitments"? Is it less than the £1.4 billion to which his statement refers? Do "current plans" mean those published last autumn or those that will be announced on 30 November? Can he give any guarantee that the current plans for 1994–95 will not be cut in the Budget? For example, is the £813 million., which was earmarked for the inner cities next year in this year's annual report from the Department of the Environment, to be maintained as part of the overall budget?
Does the Secretary of State recognise that city pride and the new regeneration budget announced today are the 22nd repackaging of inner-city and urban aid programmes, from urban capital partnerships to city action teams, enterprise zones, urban programme schemes and long-forgotten business breakfasts? Does he accept that, as the packages get ever glossier, the money gets ever smaller? Bitter experience has taught us that what starts as fanfare always end as thin fare. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is true.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that housing investment, already down from £8 billion in 1979 to £3.5 billion this year, has been cut again and that councils will be forced to shed thousands more jobs as a consequence of the Secretary of State's reported surrender to the Chief Secretary in the latest spending round? Does he not recognise that the effectiveness of the Government's urban and regional policy will be judged not by today's announcement but by whether, at long last, the Government are to back their rhetoric by giving the necessary resources and powers to councils so that they can create a better quality of life for the communities they serve?

Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his earliest words, which were more supportive than anything I have heard him say on radio or television. However, he then went on to say much of what he said on radio and television, so I have checked up on some of his comments.
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to quangos, because he announced today the creation of the Thames Park authority, a new accountable police authority, a strategic health authority, a cultural education commission, a London film commission, a new development agency, a royal docks agency and a register of private landlords. He did all that today. The hon. Gentleman cannot teach anyone about concern for quangos.
What I have announced today is not a new body. It brings together the civil servants who already provide Government services in the regions so that they can provide those services more effectively and so that they can be influenced more directly by the borough councils, county councils and district councils. They are brought together in such a way that they can make decisions about
the priorities locally, instead of being forced to keep the budget apart as a result of decisions that are taken centrally.
When the Labour party was in power so long ago, it had exactly the same problem, but it did nothing about it. Labour accepted that departmental divisions were more important than local needs. We are insisting that local needs come first, and that is what the proposal will achieve.
The other change is a matter of considerable importance. Those who bid for help with projects for which they have enthusiastic support will no longer have to ensure that their projects fit the various departmental programmes. They can present their projects, and if they fit the needs of the area, they will receive the support, irrespective of the programme from which it comes. That makes a considerable difference.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asked a question about regional government. I have not had the pleasure of reading the early contribution to this debate by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). However, I have had the pleasure


of talking to him about the matter. His view is very clear. He wants a lively local government system which is close to the people who pay for it and vote for it.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe does not want—and nor do I—regional government, which is an entirely fictitious concept, to cover the overweening devolution plans of the Labour party and to excuse the problem of what has properly been called the "Dalyell" difficulty. In the latter case, people vote in Scotland for their own projects and then come to the imperial Paliament, as it was once called, and make decisions on behalf of other people who have no say in those decisions. That is what the Labour party is trying to cover up. Anyone who lives in East Anglia and believes that there is a connection between Norfolk and Thurrock has not lived in any part of that area.
The hon. Gentleman referred to my "carefully crafted" words. They were carefully crafted and, if I may say so, they were better crafted than the last joke that we heard from the hon. Member for Blackburn. They were carefully crafted to say that this is a decision about improving the way in which we provide services. Even if I receive more money next year, less money next year or the same amount, it will be important to provide the best value for the money that I receive. The problem with the Labour party is that it prefers to have twice as much money half as well spent. Labour would consider that a victory.
Labour does not understand that we need to achieve 100p value for every £1 that we spend. That would be true if we had twice as much to spend, half as much to spend or any amount of money to spend. The money would be better spent.
Finally—[Interruption.] I think that you will agree, Madam Speaker, that the hon. Member for Blackburn asked many questions. With regard to his last question, I promise to consult Londoners on the 22nd of this month. There will be a major consultation exercise which will be open to all Londoners so that they can identify their priorities and say what they are proud about in London. They will be able to say what they would like to see changed. We will take that into account as we will listen to Londoners, instead of inventing a series of new taxes for Londoners, which is what the hon. Member for Blackburn would provide.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend accept that any policy designed for rejuvenation, as he has outlined in his statement, should be welcomed on both sides of the House? The emphasis on local needs, paying particular attention to local views and local government, is also something that most of us would wish to welcome.
However, can my right hon. Friend deny that the regional office for the south-west will be in Bristol? Does he think it sensible that half of London should be a region controlled by Bristol? If he wishes to have the regional headquarters in Bristol, a third of the south-west is further away from Bristol than London is. If he is to emphasise the local side, he must come down to a regional centre—

Mr. David Harris: In Cornwall.

Sir Peter Emery: Even Cornwall would be acceptable, but perhaps Plymouth or Exeter would be more appropriate for the south-west. Without such a regional centre, my

right hon. Friend's views on that aspect of local government will not ring quite as true in the south-west as we would want them to.

Mr. Gummer: I thank my right hon. Friend for his general comments. At the moment, the majority of the regional offices are in Bristol. It is my intention to keep them there in the integrated regional office. The offices that currently exist in Plymouth and Penzance will remain there. It is not a question of taking away those offices; there is no question of that. But I acknowledge the problem of the south-west, which is the difficulty of finding the right centre. My hon. Friend will remember that, when I was Minister of Agriculture, I spent considerable time trying to get that right, and I retained—with great difficulty—the office in Cornwall to ensure that we were properly represented. When I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall be happy to see whether there is a better answer, he will understand that I mean that, and that they are not merely words.

Mr. Simon Hughes: After 14 years and a manifesto commitment, some co-ordinated regional urban policy is better than none. But are not six locally linked Whitehall Departments no substitute for one democratic town hall with adequate finance? Is not the reality that, sadly, this—apart from the sting of the "Tale of Three Cities" at the end, which is rather selective and unfair to all the cities in the country —is a tale told by no democratic Minister, with Government Departments still full of civil servants, above all, signifying no more democracy, no more money and local people having no more ability to choose their local priorities through locally accountable democratic representatives?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman misses the point altogether. These are Whitehall offices that have been there even since the long time ago that his party was in office. [Interruption.] Some of them have been here as long as that. It may have been when horses and carts were used, but the offices were there.
The hon. Gentleman must remember that, even with such a preposterous concept of regional government, national policies would have to be delivered. Surely one does that better by co-ordinating them more sensibly, and by having more influence from the locally elected people, as well as local business and local voluntary organisations. That is why this has been widely welcomed by local authorities not in the hands of the Conservative party.

Sir Anthony Durant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his regional office for the Berkshire area is also in Bristol? There is also a good Department of Trade and Industry office in Reading. Will he consider moving one of his offices to Reading and amalgamating a number of offices there?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. There is a DTI area office in Reading. There are offices in a number of other towns. We shall seek by consultation to find the place most accessible to the largest number of people, particularly to the local authorities, business interests and the voluntary bodies.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My constituents in inner-city Manchester will welcome any action that improves their lot. However, when the


Secretary of State says that local needs come first, has he any idea of the needs of my constituents, many thousands of whom live in deep poverty? They suffer such unemployment that, in parts of my constituency, there is male unemployment of 32 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman talks about existing programmes, but what benefits will my constituents gain from the urban programme which buoyed them up under a Labour Government?
The right hon. Gentleman says that his plans are designed to meet ethnic needs. I represent a large number of people from ethnic minorities and want to know how the right hon. Gentleman can claim to meet ethnic needs when, at the same time, the Government are massacring section 11 funding, about which my constituents write to me all the time. My constituents live in deep poverty; what assurance can the right hon. Gentleman give me that his plans will be more than a shiny veneer on top of the deprivation in which thousands of people live in inner-city Manchester?

Mr. Gummer: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I understand many of the problems of Manchester, as I have visited it often and spent much time talking to the Labour leader of Manchester city council, which covers pan: of the area more colloquially called Manchester—beyond which are many other districts of equal need. The plan is designed to bring the programmes together and make it easier to focus the response to meet the specific needs of Manchester. The right hon. Gentleman will probably find that the problems of the ethnic minorities in Manchester may lead to a greater proportion of the budget being used on that sector; there may be other districts where the need is not so great.
The right hon. Gentleman—I say this with care—should reflect that the Government have put great resources into inner cities, and their efforts dwarf some of the poor efforts made by him and his right hon. and hon. Friends when they were in power. It would be more responsible of the right hon. Gentleman to acknowledge what we have done, even if he wants to ask for more.

Mr. Richard Tracey: We will need time to digest my right hon. Friend's statement in full. It is pleasing to hear him say that there will be full consultation on future progress. Does he agree that, particularly in London, the greatest priority within the consultation should be given to the 32 London boroughs? The London unitary authorities are the model of local government and unitary authorities in the rest of the country. Will he take the opportunity this afternoon to say that there is absolutely no chance of returning to a single London authority, which would be—as it was before—disastrous?

Mr. Gummer: The London boroughs are a very proper way of democratically representing the people of London. There is no need for an over-arching authority in London. The reason for that is simple: London is a collection of different communities that are gathered together in different groups for different purposes. When we talk about the Thames, we must talk about the communities that stretch far beyond the Greater London area; otherwise we would not be dealing effectively with the Thames. If we want to talk about the problems of London theatres, we need deal only with that part of London that lies in part of the London boroughs of Camden and Westminster and a bit of the borough of Lambeth. The variable geography of London means that it is better to deal with it in that way.
I hope that my hon. Friend has read the reported statements of the Labour party. If he has, he will see that not only does it propose that we should have an over-arching body, but it dictates—there is no choice—that half of the democratically elected people should be men and half should be women. It also proposes handing back independent grant-maintained schools to the educational expertise of Lambeth, Southwark, Camden, and Hammersmith and Fulham. Is that giving people a decently run education system?

Mr. George Mudie: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the £1.4 billion that he has mentioned contains no new money? Will he state whether that means that section 11 funding will be restarted after it was disgracefully stopped during this financial year?
The Secretary of State said that he has chosen the three cities on the grounds of size. Will he have another look at that, and look at the great city of Leeds? Outside London, Leeds is geographically the biggest city in the country and, outside Birmingham, is the second largest in population. If size is the criterion, will the right hon. Gentleman look again, because he seems to have left out the great city of Leeds by error?

Mr. Gummer: I had the pleasure of living in Leeds for some years, and I am an enthusiastic supporter of the city. If Leeds feels that it would like to apply itself to the scheme, I would not discourage it. I had to find some way of choosing the three cities for the pilot scheme, but if Leeds comes to me about the scheme I should be happy to look at it.
The hon. Gentleman referred to money, and I say to him that it is about the delivery of service. I will confirm that the amount of money that is available for next year's programmes is £1.4 billion. The hon. Gentleman also referred to section 11 grants. The new system will enable people locally to have real influence on the decisions about whether a larger proportion of the budget might be spent on section 11 purposes.

Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that local government has for a long time complained about the opacity of present regional arrangements, and should therefore welcome most strongly the proposals announced today? Will he also confirm that it should support the concept of one office, one contact point and one set of priorities, and should welcome the opportunities for greater accountability which the new arrangements will create? That is unlike the Opposition, who seem to dislike all forms of accountability. Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the arrangements for all the Departments will now been on a conterminous boundary?

Mr. Gummer: For the first time, there will be conterminous regions for the Departments, and that is a vital change. It has always seemed ridiculous to me that different Departments had different regions. That made any sort of planning almost impossible.
I am sure that the House will agree with the words of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) who said that co-ordination between Departments on urban policy is an idea "whose time has surely come". I am sad that the hon. Gentleman has not carried that information to the hon. Member for Blackburn. There is much in the announcement which has been asked for by politicians from all


parties. It is a pity that, apart from a slim sentence at the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Blackburn could not say that it was a good idea, although the Opposition might have liked it to go further. If he had said that it was a good idea and that the Opposition supported it, I am sure that the public would have believed him much more.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I know that the Secretary of State has just come off the farm. May I tell him that the city of Birmingham has long and deep experience of the council, the private sector, the chamber of commerce and industry working close together to deliver the national exhibition centre, and, more recently, the magnificent international convention centre and national indoor arena?
How will the Secretary of State match his claim that the changes will better recognise local needs and aspirations, when, in fact, the process remains a lottery? Will not one community be bidding against another, and one city or town bidding against the rest?

Mr. Gummer: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should say that, because those were not terms used by either the Labour leader of Birmingham or, indeed, her Conservative opponent; they have welcomed the proposals. The hon. Gentleman will find that there is widespread support for what we are doing, and I do not think that he helps his case by making general comments about one's bucolic past.
I want the better delivery of Government services to the people of Britain, much closer to their localities. I want local authorities, business communities and voluntary bodies to be able to influence decisions more effectively; and I want those decisions made on the basis of need, not departmental desire.

Mr. Hartley Booth: I hope that the Secretary of State realises that there will be a wide welcome for his proposals, not least because they will be seen not to add another tier of government. Moreover, they will not conflict with local government. Some years ago, I came to this place wearing another hat as chairman of the British Urban Regeneration Association, so I know that these proposals deal with a persistent problem. There was always a conflict between Departments in local areas when we were attempting urban regeneration.
I hope that my right hon. Friend also realises that the proposals will be welcomed because, in many areas, not least crime prevention, Government Departments need to get their act together. Finally, they will be welcomed because, unlike the Labour party's nanny state vocabulary describing strategies of the past and proposing new taxes, the Government propose none of that. The proposals achieve what they are meant to achieve without taxes or the nanny state.

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. This is, indeed, the sort of answer that the Audit Commission, the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other organisations had sought, and I am sure that it is widely accepted. It is right not to impose another tier of government or more taxes. We understand today that the Labour party would be liable to produce, if it were ever elected, a tourism tax, an

entertainment tax, a television tax, an airport tax and a robust and diverse group of new taxes on Londoners. On such a day, the public will once again be pleased to know that they have a Conservative Government.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Minister will know something of the problems of the borough of Tower Hamlets. He will know that, in recent weeks, those problems have been enormously compounded by outbreaks of racial violence and by the election of the first British National party candidate to a council anywhere in Britain, in the ward of Millwall. The Minister will also know that these events reflect, perhaps more than anything else, the chronic shortage of social goods in the borough of Tower Hamlets.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the crisis in the provision of housing is such that adequate resources should come from his Department? What do these new proposals do to increase the supply of housing at rents that people can afford in Tower Hamlets, which is desperately short of housing and where competition for available housing leads to serious racial dispute and disturbance?
Some of my colleagues have already mentioned section 11 funding. Tower Hamlets is the largest recipient of such funding in the country, because we have a large Bengali population. Section 11 funding, however, is to be cut by one third over the next two years. How can the Minister tell the House that he is doing something about inner cities when he and his predecessors have let them rot?

Mr. Gummer: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should finish his question in that way, because I have been to the very estate where that disgraceful election took place. I noted that the estate which elected the person in question was one in which we are in the course of spending £25 million. I noticed, too, in that same area an entirely new housing estate of high-quality homes for people on low incomes. It has just been completed, and it was the selection of people to go into those homes which caused some of the problems.
I noticed at the same time that the London borough of Tower Hamlets has a housing action trust. I noticed that city challenge in the area has been especially focused on Bengalis. So we are doing a whole series of things, and the right hon. Gentleman might have started by saying how pleased he was about that. He might like more, but there is no doubt that we are doing a focused job. It will be easier in the future, with the integrated London office, to ensure that the programmes dealing with Tower Hamlets and its special problems will be more open to pressure of the local authority and more able to meet local needs in the way in which local people want.
I remind the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that, until recently, Tower Hamlets had an uninterrupted history of Labour government, so Labour must accept the very highest fault for the situation that now exists in the London borough of Tower Hamlets. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman blaming this Government when he has served in Governments for many years and, as a Labour Member, has represented an area for which he has not done the best.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend will know well that, to local people, one of the most incomprehensible features is the way in which large Government projects can be dreamed up and planned with apparently no concept that they will lay enormous costs on


the roads programme to serve those projects, especially potential railway stations for example. His announcement is encouraging because in future we may find civil servants in the regions taking into account the total effect on the region's budget, rather than taking the disparate approaches that we have suffered hither to.

Mr. Gummer: That is our purpose.

Mr. Doug Henderson: Will the Secretary of State accept that, on the day that he has announced his plans for London and other parts of the country, it is a mark of defensiveness that he refers in disparaging terms to a draft Labour party document, which was rejected by the policy committee of the Labour party six weeks ago—as he knows? In relation to his own document, will he accept that no amount of reshuffling of desks in Plymouth, in Exeter, in Bristol or in my region, in Newcastle, Durham or Middlesbrough, can compensate other parts of the country for any reduction in resources? Will he accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are sceptical of his comment that £1.4 billion is available at the moment? Many believe that that £1.4 billion could be £1.3 billion or £1.2 billion or £1.1 billion by 30 November. Will he give a firm guarantee to the House that that £1.4 billion will be available for economic regeneration on 30 November?

Mr. Gummer: It is a remarkable moment when one discovers that the Labour party's plans for London got such a bad press in half a day that they were withdrawn immediately. That is the kind of U-turn that we have not known before—the U before the turn. The hon. Gentleman admits that, after two years, the Labour party produced a plan for London that was so bad that it was thrown out by the Labour party. I hope that the House will recognise how little it has to offer local government. However much more money I have or however much less money I have, it is much better to get 100p in the pound value than not to get full value for money. Why cannot the Labour party accept that now? Why will it never accept good news? Why does it always want to make people miserable?

"Competing for Quality"

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the progress of the Government's competing for quality programme.
As the House will know, the aim of this initiative is to introduce competition into the provision of public services. We are asking central Government to operate under disciplines that the private sector has long taken for granted, and which local authorities, through compulsory competitive tendering, have been handling successfully for many years.
For a number of years, there has been a small central Government market testing programme, amounting to little more than £20 million a year. Two years ago, in the White Paper "Competing for Quality", we announced our intention of turning this small programme into something much larger. We wanted a step change in the amount of work that was market-tested. I can now announce that we have achieved that goal. I shall outline the progress that we have made, the savings that have been produced, and the action that we intend to take to increase the scope of market testing over the coming year.
The House may recall that, in the "Citizen's Charter First Report", published last November, the Government set themselves the target of reviewing activities worth about £1.5 billion and involving more than 44,000 staff, over the 18-month period from 1 April 1992 to 30 September this year. Those activities have now been intensively examined to see how value for money can best be improved.
In some instances, we took a strategic view that, in future, the work in question should be done by the private and not the public sector. In others, we found that the work no longer needed to be done at all. In several cases, we found ways of increasing in-house efficiency without going out to tender. In a host of others, services have now been successfully market tested, with the public and private sectors competing for the work.
I can report to the House that just under £1 billion-worth of this programme is now complete or nearing completion. Specifically, provisional figures show that by the end of September, just under £700 million worth had been achieved. Worth to the value of a further £250 million, approximately, will be achieved shortly, representing tenders involving the Inland Revenue's information technology services. A decision on those will be taken soon. A number of other decisions that were initiated in this first tranche will also be taken in the coming weeks.
As I have said, this £1 billion programme contrasts with the previous annual programme of about £20 million. That represents a remarkable achievement by the market testing units in Departments and the efficiency unit in my Department.
The increase in the size of the market testing programme as such is not the most important matter. What really matters is the scale of the gains in value for money that have been achieved for the taxpayers and users of services. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that, in relation to the £700 million of work completed by the end


of September, the "competing for quality" programme has already saved approximately £100 million. Not only that, but this benefit will recur year after year.
These savings should be welcome to the House because at the same time Departments are reporting that standards and quality are being maintained or improved. That is what market testing is all about. The House will be interested to learn that in the first year, where in-house teams competed, they won about 57 per cent. by value. That is a clear indication that Departments are giving proper consideration to the merits of both external and in-house teams.
I should like to make it clear that some of the very highest quality and most innovative winning bids have come from in-house teams, and I pay tribute to those who have won competitions from inside. None the less, in other cases private sector bids have offered the best quality and value for money. Either way, it is a very great gain that we will now have confidence that the best provider, private or public, will be doing the work.
I turn now to the Government's programme for the next 12 months starting on 1 October. Departments' plans are again ambitious. In addition to any work that is necessary to complete their 1992–93 programmes, they will be looking to market-test work currently worth a total of £800 million, and covering more than 35,000 civil servants.
In staff terms, this 12-month target will be more challenging than the 18-month programme that I have just described. I am confident, however, that further good progress will be made. A Department-by-Department breakdown of these figures has been placed in the Library, together with a copy of the new monthly "Market Testing Bulletin", which was published for the first time today.
I have announced the progress that we have made with market testing, the savings produced, and the scale of our 1993–94 programme. I should also inform the House of the Government's intention of introducing legislation, when a suitable opportunity arises, to remove some of the statutory obstacles to market testing in both central and local government.
As hon. Members may be aware, some statutes are framed so that activities have to be carried out by a Minister. The principle that such activities can be carried out by civil servants on a Minister's behalf is well established. We now propose a common-sense extension of that principle to allow contractors as well as civil servants to carry out such work in appropriate cases.
The aim of our "competing for quality" initiative is simple. It is to ensure that public services are provided in an efficient and cost-effective way. It is an integral part of the citizen's charter: it is improving the quality of our public services. It is improving value for money on behalf of the taxpayer, and it is a policy that other countries are keen to adopt. Market testing is here, and it is working. I hope that all hon. Members will give it their support.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his statement today represents another major step along the road to the dissolution of a national civil service? Is there any limit to that process, or does he simply envisage central Government as a collection of contracts? Will he confirm that he is announcing a further tranche of civil service

privatisation when more than half of last year's programme is still uncompleted, even though £25 million of taxpayers' money has been spent on it?
Why is the right hon. Gentleman so confident that the exercise next year will be about value for money when last year saw Mailforce sending 84,000 annual tax advice packs to the wrong addresses, Group 4 losing a string of prisoners, expensive RAF Tornados being seriously damaged by a private contractor and privatised Astra skills centres running up thumping debts and ending up in the hands of a proven fraudster?
If the right hon. Gentleman is as interested in value for money as he claims, why did he recently override an in-house bid at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency at Swansea that was £1 million cheaper than that from the private contractor? Is it not clear that the whole obsession with privatisation has a great deal more to do with political dogma than with greater efficiency and better services?
Is it not now clear beyond doubt that any savings that have been made are the result not of improvements in quality of services but overwhelmingly the result of cuts in jobs, pay and terms and conditions? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the £100 million savings that he mentioned have come wholly from reductions in the living standards of civil servants? On that point, is he aware that recent changes to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 has led John Hall of the CBI's competing for quality committee to say:
If this clause goes on the statute book, then there will be little point in our members getting involved in public sector tendering"?
If the potential for cutting costs by reducing wage levels has been virutally removed, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where he expects cost savings to come from in future?
The right hon. Gentleman says that he is in favour of fair competition. In that case, why is it that, when the work of the Inland Revenue information technology office was market-tested, he disallowed any in-house bid, despite an excellent record in delivering work on time and within budget? Why has the right hon. Gentleman said nothing about the risk to confidentiality posed not only by his proposals today but by the other eccentric proposals to privatise taxpayers' records and the Patent Office? Will this not undermine the fundamental right of citizens to guaranteed privacy?
Finally, with regard to the legislation that the right hon. Gentleman announced, how will he ensure the public and parliamentary accountability of private contractors carrying out work formerly undertaken by civil servants under the direction of Ministers? Will this not mean replacing the ethic of public service for essential functions by contractors operating solely in the pursuit of profit?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), in that long list of questions, made one thing clear—he is not one of those who are called modernisers in the Labour party. He is the old-fashioned dinosaur who represents nothing but the producer interest, and on this occasion the interests of the civil service unions and not those of the users of services.
There is no question of the dissolution of the civil service. There are 550,000 central Government civil servants—hundreds of thousands more than there were 50 years ago. They provide services that cover a hugely expanded range. It is essential that we modernise the civil service to recognise the fact that it is now a supplier of


goods and services and not the small policy advisory service that it once was. The Labour party is simply out of date on those matters.
The figures of savings that I gave are net of the expenditure on those contracts. If one takes the example of my Department, there was expenditure of about a quarter of what was necessary to get that saving. One in four—repayment of the investment four times over in the first year—is a remarkable investment, and very good value for money.
On the DVLA, as the hon. Gentleman should know, there will be a market test with an in-house bid next year.
On ideology, the hon. Member is out of touch with the people in his party in local government who, in spite of our efforts, are actually running some services.

Mr. Skinner: What about Westminster council?

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, we would rather that they were all run by good Conservative councils. None the less, there are Labour people who actually run things—unlike the hon. Gentleman—who know that what he is talking about is complete nonsense.
For instance, listen to Jeremy Beecham, Labour leader of Newcastle city council, who has gone on the record as saying:
the development of service-level agreements between the provider of central services within authorities and client departments have caused a re-examination of performance, with generally beneficial results".
Or Margaret Hodge, former Labour leader of Islington council:
Real improvements have been achieved through competitive tendering".
Or Dr. Lawrence Silverman, Labour leader of Berkshire county council:
If the private sector can provide computing, payroll and other financial services cheaper than the in-house bureaucracy, then we owe it to the people of Berkshire to make these savings".
Labour people outside in the real world are rather more up to date than the hon. Gentleman.
To return to the lists of questions, TUPE has been no threat to the programme whatsoever. Many of those bidding for central Government services—for example, in information technology—have found TUPE helpful. People have transferred with their terms of service protected—often finding, incidentally, that in the private sector the terms and conditions of service are better than they are in the public sector.
We shall take a decision about the Inland Revenue shortly. There are two bids for Treasury Ministers to evaluate, and they will compare those bids against the service that is currently provided and get the best value for money and the best quality of service for users and taxpayers. Of course we must closely examine any contract that involves the handling of confidential information to ensure that safeguards exist. There is no inherent reason why private sector workers should be less trustworthy than public sector workers, and it is extraordinary to suggest that they should be so.
Finally, on the bogus point of parliamentary accountability, for years services have been provided to Parliament and on behalf of Parliament by private sector contractors. The rules of ministerial accountability remain absolutely the same for them as if the services are provided in house, and nothing in what I am saying changes that one jot.

Mr. James Couchman: In considering what parts of the Inland Revenue's work may be market-tested, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Inland Revenue, especially when it has gone on fishing trips, has indulged in some of the most appalling excesses in dealing with small businesses and private individuals? Does he agree that, with proper training, the private sector can deal just as effectively with people's tax affairs as the public sector has demonstrated for many years?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend, in that, if the relevant Ministers take the decision to contract services out, they will seek to increase quality; and there is nothing inherently impossible in finding good private sector contractors to do that work properly. They will take the decision, in that case and in all the other cases that we are considering, on the basis not just of money but of quality of service.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Can the Secretary of State explain why the announced programme of £1.5 billion has become a less than £1 billion programme in practice? Can he explain why the 25 per cent. savings that he suggested would result from the programme have become only slightly more than 10 per cent. savings? Has he read the annual report of the National Audit Office, and can he explain why the head of the office suggested in that report that contracting out leads to weak financial monitoring, lack of clear lines of responsibility, conflict of interest and improper application of financial controls?
Will he set up a review into the costs of his programme, as it does not seem to be meeting his own efficiency targets?

Mr. Waldegrave: The head of the NAO said no such thing. He said that those were important matters which must be examined in every case—they can be and will be. There is no reason whatsoever why the British Government and civil servants cannot become just as good at handling the process of contracting out as British local authorities and many other Governments around the world.
We have made savings way above 25 per cent. I have a list showing that some are more than 50 per cent. I have one example from the Stationery Office in my constituency, where an in-house bid won. That refutes the hon. Gentleman's slur that the White Paper is all about lowering people's living standards.
The staff suggested that a move to new premises would provide a better service and save £800,000 a year. It was their idea and shows the benefits that can be achieved for services by asking those on the front line for ideas and challenging them to be innovative.

Mr. James Paice: Is it not rather peculiar that people who would not think twice about going out to tender to have their car repaired, their house built or their drive mended have a totally different approach to public services? Why are people happy to be careful about getting value for money when it is their money, but when it is taxpayers' money they are far more cavalier and seem to be more concerned about the jobs in the civil service?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is a very high duty on the House, and on Ministers who report to the House, to get the best value for money when there is a great battle to preserve front-line services in every area. If we are wasting money on the bureaucracy in our Departments, it is a serious


matter. If, by exercising a challenge to the in-house teams that the "competing for quality" initiative represents, we can produce real savings which can then be ploughed back into the services for which the House votes, that is what we must do.
I agree with my hon. Friend. The answer to his question is that once again, when push comes to shove, the Labour party represents not the users of services, but always the producer interest.

Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill): If the right hon. Gentleman means what he says about competition, why have the Government refused to allow those who work in the Inland Revenue to compete with private business by bidding for their own work under the £2 billion contract for the computerised operations of the Inland Revenue?

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, as a former member of the Inland Revenue Staffs Federation, there are two bids which will compete with each other and with the in-house service. The contract will not be put outside unless there are clear gains of quality or value for money over the service as provided at present.

Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a welcome for the progress that he has announced, but that there has been criticism of a number of what seem to be disincentives to those seeking to bid for out-sourcing? Does he accept that there is concern about the way in which specifications are drawn up, in such a way that they appear to be favouring the existing task rather than opening up more imaginative opportunities?
Does he also accept that there is some concern about the way in which some of the tenders have not been allowed full access to information about the tasks being done in house, thus making true comparison difficult? Finally, will he assure the House that, in all cases, the 17.5 per cent. VAT which applies to outside tenders has been disregarded in making proper comparisons?

Mr. Waldegrave: On the latter point, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that, as set out in the original "Competing for Quality" White Paper, the VAT is taken into consideration in such a way that the playing field is level.
My hon. Friend makes a point that I have heard from one or two outside contractors, and I shall make one general point. As both sides of the competition appear to claim that the field is sloped against them, I suspect that that means that it is pretty level. The fact that 57 per cent. were won in house and 43 per cent. out shows that the competition must have been broadly fair.
My hon. Friend touches on some real points. The purpose of our policy is to attract innovative bids from the private sector, and we must not over-specify the contracts. We are interested in the outputs—the actual service provided to the customers. We must allow innovative bids from both the private sector and in house, and must not over-specify. We are becoming better at that as Departments become more familiar with the process.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why not market-test the Government? Certainly, if this Minister was market-tested he would be out on his neck. When the Scott inquiry ends, he will be out on his neck anyway.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about a £100 million saving in public services. However, in an attempt to shift power and democratic control away from local government, the Government have set up a commission under John Banham to abolish certain authorities in and around counties, the result of which will be to remove competition, because there will then be only unitary authorities. It is costing £1.1 billion to finance that commission. Would not it make more sense to scrap it rather than go down the road of market testing?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman may recollect that the Government of the country was market-tested recently, and his party lost.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read a document entitled "The Citizen's Charter", written in 1921 by Herbert Morrison—then secretary of the London Labour party? The document states that the best way to improve public services is to introduce competition. Does not that show that no amount of tacky red plastic roses, sharp suits or slick PR can disguise the fact that, far from progressing, Labour is regressing?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. I shall read that document if he would be so good as to lend me his copy. The point my hon. Friend makes is absolutely fair. I made it about Labour councils, but it is also true that the parliamentary Labour party has gone steadily backwards, despite its modernising image, on all these matters.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the quality and integrity of the British civil service are the envy of the world? Wherever Members of Parliament go throughout the world, great tributes are always paid to our civil service.
The public are clearly hostile to what is happening—the development of what many of us can only describe as the spiv state. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the honesty of people in the private sector, but the issue is not honesty, but loyalty. To whom are the new servants responsible? It is clear that they are responsible not to the state but to the private management that controls them.

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever worked in the private sector or outside the House.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, all my life.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was loyal to his employer and observed proper confidentiality. I certainly did when I worked in the private sector. Presumably he seeks votes from private sector workers, so it is hardly helpful to him to pursue his line of argument.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong about public support. In the summer, we published an opinion poll showing that about 70 per cent. of people questioned answered yes to the question, "Should services be provided by the private sector if value for money is found to be better there than in the public sector?" It is interesting that two thirds of those working within the public sector took that same view.

Mr. Eric Pickles: In my right hon. Friend's statement, he cited a list of Labour


luminaries in local government who now favour compulsory competitive tendering. I offer him a further name—that of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). In Tribune in February—Labour Members can still read it—the hon. Gentleman said that he recognised the case for CCT in basic services.
Is not the simple truth that we want to provide quality services? We want to look at the way in which services are provided and test them against the needs of the market. So often, all that the Government do is provide services because they have always provided services, without looking for value for money. We pay an average of £230 a week to civil servants, so we have the right to ensure that that money is well spent.
Will my right hon. Friend urge Labour Members to tell their friends in the trade unions that tomorrow's strike is a waste of time? It is not about improving the public sector; it is about trying to wreck the public sector.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. He also makes the point that the hon. Member for Blackburn is often much more sensible than he pretends to be. He quotes him rightly; this is about value for money and providing the best quality of service that we possibly can. Those running the services on behalf of parties in all parts of the country well understand that.
The sums that my hon. Friend quoted as being paid by every citizen in the country towards the support of the public sector are correct. It is right that we should seek to provide value for money in return for expenditure on those huge resources.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Privatisation, agency agreements and quangos have taken power from the House and its ability to check the executive. These proposals, and the contracts that will follow them, will also take away many of those powers.
The Minister's position has arisen because there was a gap in the number of issues that could be dealt with by his Front Bench—the Government having scrapped the Department of Energy—and he has been given a non-job in connection with charters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) had to push to get answers from the Benefits Agency. Answers were published in Hansard, but should be produced not by the Benefits Agency but by the Ministry. When will we return to a position in which the House can check the executive and seek to control it?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am not sure how my Department relates to the Department of Energy in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and the public sector unions clearly regard this policy as important. I agree with them. It is an important policy for which to answer to the House, and important because it will secure better quality and value for money for taxpayers and users of services.
Nothing in the policy detracts from the accountability to, and power of, the House. If services are provided by private contractors or civil servants in house, the accountability to the House remains the same, just as it does in local government if exactly the same thing is done.

Mr. Peter Luff: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to emphasise that it is a question not of cheaper services, but of better services? That is the

purpose of market testing. Does he further agree that that is often achieved by a better specification of the service to be provided by the public or private sector?
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Oldham, West said in his scandalous opening remarks, Group 4—which provides a prison escort service—is a classic example of such a better service. Group 4 has lost precisely half the number of prisoners who were lost when the service was provided by the public sector, and it is also cheaper.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. As in other matters, the hon. Member for Oldham, West is out of date in his briefing. Others who lobby me about these matters have given up using that as an example, because it is true that Group 4 has done better than its predecessors in the public sector.
The fundamental point that my hon. Friend makes is right: this is about value for money, about cash and about quality. In 30 per cent. of the cases reported by Departments as part of the initiative, they have been able to report clear improvements in quality of service and value for money.

Mr. John McAllion: Has the Minister read early-day motion 2587 on the Order Paper today? It calls for an immediate halt to market testing in the civil service, and was signed by more than 100 hon. Members in one night. Tomorrow, 300,000 civil servants will take part in a national strike protest action against market testing. Will the Minister answer the charges that privatisation in the civil service threatens not only the quality of public services but the confidentiality and impartiality of public servants? Above all, it threatens the accountability of those public servants to the elected representatives of the people, who sit in the House.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. I have spoken to no Government around the world —on the centre-left, on the centre-right or of any other persuasion—who are not following a similar path. I was in the United States last week, where Vice-President Gore is introducing competition in public services in the same way. I have read the early-day motion. It confirms what I said earlier—that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends simply represent the public service unions, in a short-term sense, and do not think about the users of the services.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) many happy returns of the day, but not many happy returns of the tired, self-serving opinions that we have heard this afternoon? Does my right hon. Friend agree that every contribution that we have heard from Opposition Members—I include the representative of the Liberal party who is here, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor)—has served to underline the fact that, time and again, they put the interests of the trade unions before the interests of the public? Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning their position?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend puts his finger on exactly the right point. The Leader of the Opposition has been trying to pretend that his party has changed into a modern social democratic party which looks after the interests of customers and citizens and so forth, but it is still the same old Labour party which, whenever it comes down to it, represents its paymasters in the way that it always has.

Mr. Paul Flynn: If it is about quality, why has the Patent Office in my constituency, which has been awarded the charter mark for its brilliant work, been selected for market testing, management buy-out and possible privatisation? The people who work there feel that they have not been given an award but have been slipped the black spot, and they were here yesterday to complain about it.
Does the Minister not realise that some areas of the civil service, such as the Patent Office, have nothing to do with the market but have to serve the public in a unique way? By encouraging innovation and inventions, they act as the guardian of intellectual property. They cannot be run by Megagreed plc or Group 4. Does the Minister realise what he is doing? We still have—just about—the least politicised and the least corrupt civil service in the world, and the Government will destroy it, bit by bit, for pure ideology.

Mr. Waldegrave: That ideology is one that is shared by many members of the hon. Gentleman's party who are running councils up and down the land. I congratulate the Patent Office on winning its charter mark. The quality of its work is very high, and is no reason why that quality should not be maintained under different ownership. It would have to be if any proposal for a change of ownership was carried through.

Mr. Douglas French: Every Conservative Member wishes to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent progress that the market testing programme is making. As to the 57 per cent. by value in-house bids which have been successful, is he entirely satisfied with the methods of costing used in those bids? Has he any means of verifying whether those costing methods are accurate and sensible?

Mr. Waldegrave: We will be presenting fuller and more detailed figures in the citizens charter White Paper, probably in February. I am satisfied that the figures are correct. I have no doubt that the Departments concerned will get better at the process of market testing in the years ahead as the programme continues. I am broadly satisfied that the figures are right and that the competitions have been fair.

Mr. Alfred Morris: In a parliamentary reply yesterday, I was told that Manchester city council's objections were being carefully considered, together with those of other consultees. What proportion of the consultees does the Minister expect to be content with what he has said today? Will he, in consultation with his colleagues, try to ensure that Manchester has an opportunity to pursue its objections?

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be referring to the wrong statement. I do not think that there is any issue about consultation with Manchester city council in particular. I have often consulted the council on a range of matters, but I am not sure that this matter is one for consultation. I am sure that Manchester city council could teach some Opposition Members about the necessity to contract out services in order to obtain the best benefits for the users of such services.
I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's question, in which case we can perhaps have a word about it later.

Mrs. Angela Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that market testing will not only eliminate waste but is the best way of ensuring value and quality in public services? As someone who has recently come from local government, I assure my right hon. Friend that the introduction of competitive tendering for local services results in a real improvement in services to residents, at lower cost.

Mr. Waldegrave: That has been the experience of many local authorities of all political persuasions throughout the country. Central Government will somewhat belatedly reap the same benefits. That should have happened years ago, and in that respect we are catching up with local government—and about time, too.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have here the touchstone of difference between the Opposition and the Conservative party? We are about the delivery of quality service at a reasonable and decent price. Time and again, the Opposition fail to realise that the control is in the letting of the contract, not in the giving of jobs. The Opposition are about the delivery of jobs to unions, while we are about delivery of service to the public.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. These exchanges have been extremely instructive in reminding us that, whatever glitz Labour tries to put on with the help of its advertising agency and the rest, it remains the same old Labour party. My hon. Friend exactly defined the difference between the two parties.

Mr. John Garrett: The Chancellor of the Duchy said that the proposed legislation will represent no departure from established principles. If that is so, for which wholly privatised services are any Ministers now accountable to Parliament? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in no case have the results or performance —rather than the cost and apparent savings through redundancy—of market-tested Government contracts been published? Will he undertake to publish the results in terms of quality of service of market-tested contracts? Finally, will any of the work of administrative grades 1 to 5 be market-tested, or is this a mandarin-free zone?

Mr. Waldegrave: On the first issue, we are talking about market testing where the responsibility for the provision of services remains with the Government and there is no change whatsoever in accountability. If an industrial operation such as British Telecom is sold into privatisation, that is not part of a market-testing programme: it is returning to the private sector something that should always have been in the private sector.
The hon. Gentleman's second point was good. I set out in the code of practice in my Department's open government White Paper that it is right to publish the quality measures that attach to service contracts. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that respect.
As to his final point, a scrutiny study of the terms, conditions, selection and recruitment of the first three grades in the civil service will shortly be published. No doubt we shall subsequently have a good debate, perhaps in the Select Committee.

Points of Order

Sir Giles Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order, which relates to events that occurred in the House last night, with some regret, but in view of the scale of the problem and the possibility that Tellers were switched and that votes were spuriously challenged. There was also some difficulty in the Serjeant at Arms obtaining access to the Lobbies at your request, Madam Speaker. As you are the guardian not only of our traditions but of our reputation, would it not be prudent for you to make your own inquiries into what occurred and to give the House your considered advice?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman and the House in general that I will take no more points of order on that matter. At this stage, I am not seeking an inquest across the Floor of the House. Neither do I want a re-run of what occurred last night, when there was disgraceful behaviour on the part of many hon. Members in an attempt to disrupt our procedures.
I assure the House that it will not be left there. I will make my own inquiries. Some hon. Members believe that the matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee. That is up to them. The House must allow me to make my own inquiries. The matter is best left there.

Mr. Roger Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Does it relate to last night's events?

Mr. Evans: It does in the sense that the record of the vote—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with last night's events. I am being firm. I will take no more points of order on that subject. I shall make my own inquiries as soon as I am allowed to leave the Chair. Leave it to me now.

Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may be interested to know that the Railways Bill has now passed all its stages in another place very successfully.

Mr. Terry Davis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to the statement made earlier by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and to the subsequent exchanges. The right hon. Gentleman misled the House by confusing an in-house bid from the Inland Revenue with an attempted bid from the people who actually do the work in the Inland Revenue. Must we wait for yet another Scott inquiry before we can show the right hon. Gentleman up yet again for what he is?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I did not mislead the House in any way. I set out the situation exactly as it exists. There are two contracts in, and no strategic decision was taken to contract out. That will be judged against the value and quality of the service provided by those people presently doing the job.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the defender of Back Benchers, I draw your attention to the way in which the statement was

introduced on the annunciator, which simply displayed the words "Competing for quality", with no indication of the subject or the Department involved. I do not want to embarrass any Conservative Members, but I asked a number of them whether they knew what was meant by those words and none of them was able to tell me.
You, Madam Speaker, always insist that we are in our places to hear such statements. Few Members, unless they know precisely the title of all Government documents, would have been aware that the statement concerned market testing. That subject might be of vital interest to their constituencies, yet right hon. and hon. Members who were in their offices might have missed the opportunity to hear the statement and to question the Chancellor of the Duchy.

Madam Speaker: It would be helpful if the titles were a little more explanatory. Often, I am not sure what a statement is about until I have read it. Perhaps we may have fuller explanations in future.

Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, reference was made to early-day motion 2587. Heading the list of those putting their names to that motion is the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), whom I informed of my intention to raise this point of order. No marks appear next to that hon. Gentleman's name to suggest that he has a registrable interest in the issue. He is of course a consultant to the National Union of Public Employees. He is leading the charge on an issue—

Madam Speaker: Order. The new rule does not start until next Session.

Mr. Heald: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. My understanding is that the decision that right hon. and hon. Members should in future register their interests if they are to present early-day motions in which they have an interest was taken as long ago as June. In this case, the hon. Members concerned are orchestrating an early-day motion on behalf of the trade unions that pay them.

Madam Speaker: It was made clear at the time that that rule would not apply until the next Session.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: He is thick.

Madam Speaker: No, I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) without wanting to embarrass anybody. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will leave it at that, but he is free to obtain more information from the Clerk of the Register of Members' Interests.

Mr. Riddick: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is attempting a higher quota of points of order than usual.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, amp;c. (negative procedure)), the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. John Smith relating to Sports Grounds and Sporting Events, namely the Question already proposed from the Chair,


not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and the said Motions may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that you will not think me a voyeur, because I am not, but last night I noticed that you were fanning yourself with the Order Paper when you were in the Chair, because obviously it was too hot in the Chamber.
As all right hon. and hon. Members know, the Chamber has the best air conditioning and is the coolest part of the entire Palace of Westminster. If it is hot in here, it is unbearable in the rest of the House. It is hot, sweaty, stuffy, stinky and insufferable. It is a hoary old chestnut that has come back time and again.
You said, Madam Speaker, that you would be inquiring into the events of last night. That is most welcome and worth while. Will you also inquire into the air conditioning, temperature and ventilation in the House? It is well beyond time that something was done about them.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might save time in the Chamber if he referred the matter to the appropriate Committee, but I will do it for him. We now come to the second motion—

Mr. Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—just a quick one.

Madam Speaker: No, the hon. Gentleman has had one —wait until next term.

Orders of the Day — Members' Pensions

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That this House endorses the proposals to give the trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund power to provide a scheme by which Members may enhance their pensions by making additional voluntary contributions, and to appoint a provider for the scheme.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion:
That this House endorses the proposal to consolidate the regulations governing the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund in one set of regulations, and to incorporate amendments to the scheme implementing past Top Salaries Review Body recommendations and certain provisions of certain Social Security and Finance Acts.
Before turning to the details of the proposals for regulations that the House will consider, perhaps I should remind hon. Members of the slightly unusual procedure that we use for dealing with amendments to the pension scheme.
Since 1987, the parliamentary pension scheme has been contained in regulations, changes to which are made under the negative procedure with the consent of the Treasury and after consulting those likely to be affected, in particular the trustees of the scheme. But so that the House has an opportunity to make its views known on the proposed changes, a debate on an amendable motion is held before the regulations are made—and this is that debate.
I should add that the documents that the House has seen are proposals for regulations and it may be necessary to make some further minor refinements before they are laid. If there is any question of significant amendment, I shall of course bring it to the attention of the House. I hope, in any event, to begin the making process before the end of November.
Before reaching this stage, there has been detailed consultation with the trustees of the scheme and I am glad to tell the House that they are happy with the proposals now being considered, as I hope the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) will confirm.
I take the opportunity on behalf of all hon. Members to pay a warm tribute to the trustees and their chairman, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. There is no doubt that they do sterling work on behalf of present and former Members and their dependants, in which they are greatly assisted by Tony Lewis and his staff in the Fees Office, who have earned the gratitude of all of us for their efforts.
I turn now to the proposed regulations and, first, to those for setting up a scheme to enable members to increase their pensions by paying additional contributions. The House will remember that last year, when we were debating pay restraint, some concern was expressed about its possible effect on pensions. I suggested that the trustees should examine the possibility of introducing an additional voluntary contributions scheme, known to the technicians in the field as an AVC scheme.
Quite simply, the idea is to increase pension benefits within Inland Revenue limits and to make full use of the tax concessions available for this kind of saving. If an AVC scheme is provided through an occupational pension


scheme, as distinct from being free standing, there are many advantages in simplifying administration and keeping costs down. I said last year that, if the trustees felt that it would be helpful to explore the possibilities more fully, I would be happy to assist.
Following the debate, I had a meeting with the trustees, at which we agreed that an AVC scheme could offer Members benefits that would outlast any period of pay restraint. I shall leave them, and in particular the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, to explain the many months of work that ensued in choosing a suitable pension provider and in deciding what benefits should be made available to those who wanted to contribute. My part is limited to the regulations that are before the House today.
The regulations provide for the establishment of an AVC scheme to provide benefits within Inland Revenue limits for such Members who choose to contribute, and so improve on benefits available under our scheme. The regulations describe how membership of the scheme will operate and the limits on contributions, which are in line with current Inland Revenue limits. The type of any maximum allowable benefit that may be provided by an AVC scheme are set out in the regulations, but I should make it clear that this is permissive.
When the chairman of the trustees speaks to the motion, should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will no doubt explain the particular benefits that can be arranged through the contract with the pension provider. In the unlikely event of that provider's insolvency, the fund would pay the benefits earned by the contributions.
I shall not say more about the AVC scheme, as my part has been quite a small enabling role to ensure that the trustees have regulations within which they can operate the scheme. I know that the House will be extremely grateful for the work that they and the Fees Office have done in setting it up.
I turn now to the proposals covered in the second motion on the Order Paper for consolidating and amending regulations. By 1987, the rules of our pension scheme could be found in seven statutes, with subsidiary rules in six statutory instruments. To make further changes entailed amending already complicated legislation, and it was not always easy to find parliamentary time for primary legislation. The Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1987 deemed the rules of the scheme to be in regulations and gave me, the Leader of the House, the power to amend the scheme by making further regulations.
At the time, we expected to be able to consolidate the scheme's existing provisions fairly quickly, but a further Top Salaries Review Body reference led to more proposals for changes. The work of consolidating previous provisions and incorporating changes agreed since that date has been considerable, and again I must pay tribute to the efforts of the trustees and the Fees Office in what has proved to be a very large task.
The new proposed regulations will now give us a single document incorporating all the current provisions of the scheme. In consolidating, we have taken the opportunity to eliminate from the regulations any obsolete provisions and those that apply only to former Members and survivors have been put in schedules. Old provisions that may still determine the rights of pensioners will be adequately saved.
The regulations have also incorporated some changes in Inland Revenue rules and other overriding legislation—for example, a right required by the Social Security Act 1986

for Members to be able to opt out of membership. Perhaps the House would find it most convenient if I were to go briefly through the scheme as it stands and point out significant changes.
I turn first to part C, which deals with membership and which has some new features. Social security legislation requires occupational pension schemes to give members a right not to belong to the scheme—to opt out. It is for schemes to decide the details of how the option should be made and how frequently it can be exercised. Members can opt out at any time, but because of the special features of parliamentary life, it has seemed sensible to give Members the opportunity, within three months of the date of a general election or by-election, to make the decision.
We have provided that a Member who has opted out can apply to rejoin as from the date of any general election or by-election at which he is elected to the House. I hope that the House will find the arrangements satisfactory. There is no change for the arrangements for the supplementary scheme for Ministers and other office holders, which were always voluntary.
There is another change in part C that I should mention. Following a TSRB recommendation in 1988, the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 made provision for Prime Ministers and Speakers, who until then had been excluded from membership, to join the fund with effect from 28 February 1991—the date of the passing of the Act. Part C provides for that.
Part D deals with contributions and the only change to which I should draw Members' attention is a new limit on contributions required by Inland Revenue rules, which applies to schemes generally. Members joining the House from 1 June 1989 may not contribute in any year on a salary higher than the maximum permitted by the Inland Revenue. However, if Members feel that this is in some way threatening, I should say in view of yesterday's debate that they may find it ironic that the permitted maximum at the moment is £75,000 a year. I do not imagine that this provision will cause huge difficulty for Members.
Part E, which deals with pensionable service, and part F, pension entitlement, are essentially unchanged, except again that a maximum pension provision now applies for Members joining the House after 1 June 1989. The maximum pension for such Members cannot exceed two thirds of the permitted maximum.
Part G provides for those retiring to take part of their pension in a tax-free lump sum. There is no change to this, except that, for those joining the scheme at 1 June 1989, the maximum pension limit will serve to limit the lump sum.
Part H deals with early retirement and early abated pensions, and part J deals with ill-health pensions. There is no change to those provisionssmall,. In part K, which deals with pensions for widows, widowers and children, we have taken the opportunity to eliminate a small discriminatory provision, which, I am happy to be able to assure the House, has never been invoked. The children of deceased female Members are now to be treated in exactly the same way as the children of male Members, instead of equal treatment depending on the trustees' discretion.
Apart from being desirable in itself, it can be included in consolidating regulations because it is understood to be required by European law with effect from 17 May 1990, or the date of the celebrated Barber judgment with which I wrestled for a long time as the Secretary of State


for Social Security. Indeed, my successor is, in a sense, still wrestling with the consequences of that judgment, as are the courts in various parts of Europe.
In part L there is no change to the provision of a gratuity payable on death in service, except one following the imposition of the permitted maximum.
Part M is entirely new. The House will remember that in 1991 the Top Salaries Review Body recommended—and we accepted—that, if a former Member died during the first five years of retirement, a Member's pension should continue to be paid to the surviving spouse for the remainder of the five years. This part of the regulations implements that recommendation.
When the other regulations were laid in 1991, arising from the TSRB report, my predecessor, the then Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House, who is now the Secretary of State for Transport, and who has had other things on his mind recently, explained that the recommendation had proved difficult to implement, but gave a commitment to introduce regulations at a later date. The regulations will apply with effect from 1 April 1992, which is when the other recommendations in the TSRB report of 1991 took effect.
The reason for the guarantee is, essentially, to ensure that beneficiaries receive value for contributions paid. The regulations provide that if the total of any pension payable to the dependants of a Member who has died within the first five years of retirement is less than the pension payable had he lived, the difference shall be paid to the spouse. The amount of the Member's pension includes any annual increase under the Pensions Increase Act to compensate for inflation.
The remainder of part M deals with other possible events during the five years of retirement, and it is necessarily complex. If the spouse also dies, any balance due under the guarantee should be paid to the spouse's estate. If there is no surviving spouse, any eligible children will receive the benefit of the guarantee. If there are no survivors at all, the amount due under the guarantee is payable to the estate. I understand that the proposals are acceptable to the trustees, and I hope that they will also be acceptable to the House.
I pass briefly over part N, which covers refunds, part P which covers transfers, and part Q, which covers added years. They are technical sections in which there is only one change of substance, with which I shall now deal.
As I said, the membership of the Prime Minister and the Speaker is one of the outstanding TSRB recommendations falling to be implemented. The TSRB reviewed the Prime Minister's and Speaker's pension arrangements in 1988. It thought it unfair that Prime Ministers and Speakers could not remain in the parliamentary fund on taking office. As the House will know, Prime Ministers and Speakers are entitled by virtue of their office to a special pension from the Consolidated Fund. The TSRB thought that they were still at a disadvantage when compared with Ministers, as they were not able to contribute to a pension scheme on their parliamentary salary.
The amendments that I am proposing would put that right with effect from 28 February 1991, the date of the passing of the enabling Act. The proposals would allow for a Prime Minister or Speaker who wanted to stay in the scheme to keep any deferred pension in the supplementary

scheme earned on service between 28 February 1991 and the date of appointment. They would also mean that any contributions that he or she had made to the fund before that date must be used to buy added years if he or she wishes to stay in the fund, of must be returned immediately. A further issue has been raised by the provisions, which we are currently examining. If anything of substance emerges I shall, of course, return to the House with the details.

Mr. David Shaw: Before my right hon. Friend concludes, may I mention a matter that I know is not wholly within his powers? This morning I attended a meeting of Maxwell pensioners. Can my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that the accounts of the Members' pension fund for the year to 31 March 1992 have been audited only in the summer of 1993, some 15 or 16 months after the event? I believe that that is worse than Robert Maxwell's record on his own pension fund accounts.
That suggested—on examination, I found it to be true —that the administration of our scheme is not kept up to date with common practice in the private sector, although there may be attempts from time to time to keep up to date the benefit and other arrangements. Could we perhaps ensure that greater priority is given to the organisation and administration of our scheme so that it is brought up to best private sector practice? Perhaps we might even set the standards of organisation and administration that we should like the rest of the country to follow.

Mr. Newton: I am aware that my hon. Friend has tabled five parliamentary questions on such matters. I have not yet been able to reply to him. I can tell him, however, that I hope shortly to be in a position to do so. My understanding is that the delay to which he referred is, at least in part, due to the special work needed to calculate pensions arising from the result of the 1992 election. I shall provide him with full answers as soon as possible. I also observe—I hope not rashly—that I would find it hard to see a parallel between the late Robert Maxwell, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Mr. Tony Lewis, our accountant.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for the warmth and kindliness of what he said about the work of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. The House will expect me, as chairman of the trustees, to give their views on both sets of regulations. First of all, however, I want to respond to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the possibility of some redrafting or, in his word, "refinements". I see no difficulty in what he proposes; nor, I am sure, will any of my fellow trustees, two of whom are with us in this debate.
In my intervention in the pay debate yesterday, I drew attention on behalf of the trustees to the erosion of pension benefits payable to Members and, more particularly, to their dependants, when there is a freeze on parliamentary pay. I recalled then that the untimely death of our much respected former colleague, Judith Chaplin, set the problems of dependants in very sharp relief. That sad event underlined the fact that, if a Member dies during a pay freeze, the effects on the incomes of his or her dependants can be lifelong, since pensions and other benefits are based


on the parliamentary salary in the deceased Member's last year of service and take no account of any subsequent increase in salary to compensate for the freeze.
As the Leader of the House indicated in his speech on parliamentary pay on 25 November 1992, the problems that arise from death in service during a period of pay restraint can be met, to an extent, by introducing an additional voluntary contributions scheme. This is why, since that debate, the managing trustees, in conjunction with the Leader of the House, who has been unfailingly helpful, the secretariat of the parliamentary contributory pension fund and the Treasury, have been working on the details of regulations to facilitate the setting up by the trustees of such a scheme. The regulations now before the House are the result of our labours.
The regulations will empower the trustees to appoint a provider or providers for a wide-ranging additional voluntary contribution scheme. Although the final details have yet to be confirmed, it is expected that Members will be able to purchase additional death benefit equal to twice the Member's salary, thus doubling the current benefit, and additional widow's and widower's pensions to take their overall benefit to two thirds of the Member's pension, which is the Inland Revenue maximum. There will also be a money purchase scheme in which Members may, within overall Inland Revenue limits on pension contributions and total benefits, purchase additional pension for themselves.
The managing trustees are content with the provisions of the scheme which the regulations offer. It will enable Members to provide extra benefits for their widows and widowers in keeping with the efforts made by the trustees over many years to provide more assistance to dependants. We were successful in obtaining an increase in widows' and widowers' pensions from one half to five eighths of the Member's pension, and will go on seeking new ways of helping them in the future.
I turn now to the consolidating regulations. These regulations amalgamate all the governing legislation of the pension fund into one document and are mainly designed to reflect the scheme as it now exists. The regulations also take account of overriding social security legislation, as the Leader of the House made clear, and of recommendations in the last report of the Senior Salaries Review Body—formerly the Top Salaries Review Body—which still await implementation. The alterations to the fund were commented on briefly in my recent briefing note to all hon. Members, which I hope will have been of help in explaining the practical effect of all that is now proposed.
In today's debate, I want to elaborate on the changes recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body. One of its most welcome recommendations, which is now to be implemented, was the introduction of a five-year guarantee for widows' and widowers' pensions. This will mean that, if an ex-Member dies within five years of the commencement of his or her pension, the widow or widower will be guaranteed a pension equal to that payable to the Member until the end of the five-year period. That will be of considerable assistance to widows and widowers as they adjust to their altered financial situation at what can be a most stressful time.
The SSRB also recommended that Prime Ministers and Speakers should be allowed to retain membership of the parliamentary contributory pension fund after assuming those offices. That will be on the basis, as we have heard from the Leader of the House, of the relationship between the reduced Member's salary and the full Member's salary

and, on current rates, means that they will accrue around three quarters of a year's pensionable service for every full year of actual service. I can report that the trustees agree that membership of the PCPF should now be available to Prime Ministers and Speakers.
The trustees of the pension fund have had considerable success in improving the scheme. As well as the increases in widows' and widowers' pensions, there have in recent years been improvements to the death-in-service lump sum benefit, in the provisions for ill-health retirement and in reducing the Member's contribution from 9 per cent. to 6 per cent. We will, of course, keep abreast of current developments in pension provision and will not hesitate to press for further changes to the scheme that can be of benefit to Members.
I listened to what the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said about his parliamentary questions. There are very particular problems in a scheme like ours. As the Leader of the House said, the timing of the general election in April 1992 was a complicating factor. I do not want to anticipate the answers to the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary questions, but I am absolutely certain that he will be well satisfied with those answers when they are given.
The trustees support and endorse both these sets of regulations, which they believe will give Members wider choice in their pension provisions and, most importantly, enable them to provide additional benefits for their widows or widowers and other dependants. I commend the regulations to the House. As before, the trustees wish to place on record the invaluable help that they and those they seek to assist have received from Tony Lewis, the Accountant of the House of Commons, and among others Alan Marskell, Michael Fletcher and Neil Crawley of the Fees Office. I am sure that their work, to which the Leader of the House referred so warmly, is deeply appreciated by the House as a whole.

Sir Peter Hordern: I add my thanks to those of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) to our Accountant and his assistants in the Fees Office for looking after our pension fund and—this may not be so generally known in this place—the beneficiaries of the Members fund.
When the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and I first came to the House, there were no pensions for those who had just retired. The Members fund was instituted to help those who had no means from the House to provide for a pension. That fund still exists. The right hon. Gentleman and I know from our respective knowledge on both sides of the House of the considerable assistance that the Members fund has offered to those ex-Members of the House for whom there was formally no provision.
I want to follow the comments of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, not so much with regard to the provisions of the additional voluntary contributions, which are welcome on both sides of the House, as in reflecting the background to the provisions and what I hope might be in store for us later.
The House recognises that we should not award extra benefits to ourselves unless they have been earned through our own parliamentary fund and have been recommended as extra benefits by the Top Salaries Review Body, which I believe has now changed its name to the Senior Salaries


Review Body. The problem is that Government Departments are always changing the names and it is sometimes difficult to keep up. I think that the SSRB will seek evidence in the coming year from hon. Members about what might be done in respect of our salaries and our pensions and other benefits. We must all welcome that.
I believe that the SSRB's recommendations will be based on the valuation of our scheme as at 1 April this year, in respect of which the Government Actuary will, for the first time, pronounce on the level of contribution from Members and from the Government. Formerly, the Actuary had the power only to make recommendations about the Government contribution. Members were stuck with their own contribution, which, so far as I am aware, was the highest contribition of any pension fund in the country. Although that contribution has been reduced substantially from 9 to 6 per cent., it is still very much on the high side.
Generally speaking, in company pension funds the provision is normally two thirds by the employer and one third by the employee. When the Government Actuary examines our fund again and sees the scale of the surplus that I anticipate will be available, I hope that he will recommend a higher contribution by the Treasury—I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have some difficulty in negotiating that—and a reduced contribution by Members. Six per cent. is still very high.
Not all hon. Members may be aware of the fact that, when the TSRB last made recommendations, it included a provision for those Members who had made capital payments towards buying extra years. As it happened, the provisions of our pension fund were improved so that it was no longer necessary to have purchased those years. Quite rightly, the TSRB recommended that those who had made those extra contributions should get their money back. The House will not be surprised to learn that that was regarded as disgraceful retrospective legislation, and we were not allowed to have back the £3 million of what I regard as our money.
I stress that this is not the Government's pension fund; it is ours. We have every right; as long as the Senior Salaries Review Body recommends that we should have an extra benefit, that is how it should be. If, on the ground of retrospection, the Government believe that that would not be suitable because it would create all sorts of precedents in other fields, which I also quite understand, that £3 million should be available to us, or our wives and widows, in some other manner. Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House to bear that in mind, because it is certain that we shall come back to the SSRB with just such a recommendation in due course.
That is not the only recommendation that we shall make. We should have had, by right, a provision for widows of two thirds rather than five eighths. The House will note that we are only now able to have two thirds by means of additonal voluntary contribution. The more normal provision in the private sector is for a widow's pension of two thirds, and that is what we should have, if the fund can stand it and if the SSRB so recommends.
It is important to make the point that our scheme is rather peculiar, in that it is a late entry scheme. That has disadvantages for Members, because they must make their contributions in a greater way than they would if

contributions extended over a longer period. It is important to recognise that Members need to make provision for their old age and for their widows in a comparatively short period. The SSRB should take further account of that. Many hon. Members may be able to think of other recommendations that the body should consider, and I hope that they will. When the SSRB comes to taking written or oral evidence, I hope that it will think seriously about how Members who retire, and their dependants, can best be provided for, perhaps by looking carefully at the provisions in other schemes in the private sector.
I very much hope that, when the Government Actuary considers our scale of contributions, he will come to the conclusion that the Government should be paying more and that Members should be paying less. That is what the right of the matter is. I will give evidence to the SSRB to that effect, and I hope that other hon. Members will, too.
It is a shame that there are a number of hon. Members who do not appreciate that ours is a funded scheme, not a pay-as-you-go scheme, and we have had material benefits from having such a scheme. Although they must be recommended by the review body, the surpluses that arise should go to Members and their dependants. There is scope for more generous treatment for those who have already retired from the House, and for their dependants. They should not be as dependent on the Members fund as they are at the moment.
The Members fund, quite properly, is dependent on careful means testing before any benefit can be paid. If possible, I should like to see provision incorporated in the next SSRB for extra benefits to be paid to Members who have retired, and to their dependants, as a right. That matter has not been covered before. I mention it in the context of a fund which, in my opinion, has been well managed and should show a substantial surplus from 1 April this year when the Actuary comes to consider it next year, and when the SSRB considers the Actuary's report on what provisions are necessary.
I hope that, when the time comes, all hon. Members will make their views known to the SSRB, not just for our sakes but for those who have already served as Members of the House, and for their dependants, too.

Mr. Tom Cox: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). In the few moments that he spoke, he touched on matters about which all hon. Members feel strongly, irrespective of which side of the Chamber we sit.
Some of my comments will centre on the point that the right hon. Gentleman rightly made about ex-Members and their families. In addition, I congratulate the Leader of the House on his clear outline of the proposals. That is of great benefit to us. I welcome the debate. All of us know that hon. Members on both sides of the House—my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) is one, but there are many others—have had years of service in the House and have always been in the forefront of looking after the interests of their colleagues. On issues such as this, we are colleagues. This is not a party political issue on which we attack each other; it is a matter of crucial importance to all.
Like other hon. Members, I pay warm tribute to Mr. Lewis and his staff. I have often been to see him to talk about an issue, to which I shall come in a few moments. I


do not think that any Officer of the House is more understanding or more willing to meet us and explain issues that, at times, can be complex. I thank him and his colleagues most sincerely, as I am sure does every hon. Member when, as they often do, they come into contact with him.
Every hon. Member, irrespective of what his job may be, looks to the day when he will receive his pension, and we are obviously concerned about what that pension will be. For a long period, in the House and doubtless elsewhere, when salaries were low, the fact that one day people would receive a pension was crucial to them and their families.
I take part in the debate not only because, as a Member, I am interested in the kind of pension that one day I hope to receive, but because I am an officer of the parliamentary Labour party benevolent fund. The issues that we are discussing are of particular interest to me as an officer of that fund.
The right hon. Member for Horsham, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, the Leader of the House, I and perhaps others have been Members of the House for a long time. All of us know of colleagues who loyally served the House as Members for many years. They were superb parliamentarians and great friends of ours, regardless of party. Sadly, they had a pretty rough deal when they ceased to be Members and, in many cases, they have passed on. The widows and families of those ex-Members still have a rough time.
I know ex-Members who were not here for long. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe touched on that point. They were not here for long, but they left young families; that is why I very much welcome the inclusion of the five-year proposal, which will give widows and widowers a guaranteed amount of money for which they qualify.
Former colleagues who, sad to say, were not here a long time—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe mentioned one of them—would have served for many years had they wished to. The lack of provision for those people presented, and in some cases still presents, hardship to their wives and families. Therefore, I welcome the change.
The debate provides an opportunity to remember ex-colleagues and their families. I know six former Members who were not here long and do not have family dependants, who have found it virtually impossible to find employment, basically because of their age. That happens in many walks of life. In his superb speech, the right hon. Member for Horsham said that we need to consider that problem.
Through the parliamentary Labour party benevolent fund, we pay a small grant twice a year, the main beneficiaries of which are the widows of former Members. Some of those ladies are now 80 or 90 years old. Their husbands were Members for many years at a time when salaries were deplorably low and, as other hon. Members have said, there were no pensions.
As I have said in many debates, I have the greatest respect for the Leader of the House, because he is one of the few Ministers who listens to what is said in the House and takes note of it. I mean that sincerely, and he knows it. I realise that it will not be easy, but I beg him to give attention to our ex-colleagues who are still alive and feel that they have had a rough deal—some of them are angry about that. The right hon. Member for Horsham gave an

idea of how the matter might be considered. I also ask the Leader of the House to consider, in particular, the widows of former Members, who are now elderly ladies.
I pay tribute again to the support that I often received from Mr. Lewis when I went to see him about the pitiful cases of wives of former Members whom we knew. We may have met those wives in the House—we all bring our wives here from time to time. We now hear and see the pathetic financial state in which those ladies find themselves, and I believe that we have to consider their situation.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to draw our attention to the compelling claims of the widows of former Members who live in circumstances of hardship. I am grateful to him for having drawn my attention to a number of cases with which he has been dealing as an officer of the benevolent fund of the parliamentary Labour party.
There are two points to make. First, an enormous amount of help has been given via the House of Commons Members' fund to people living in circumstances of hardship. Secondly, we want to do very much more, as the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir. P. Hordern) said. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) has made an extremely powerful contribution to the work of the parliamentary Labour party benevolent fund and the House of Commons Members fund. I can assure him that we would like, in contact with him, to do even more for former Members and their dependants, who at present, without many people knowing about it, live in hardship.

Mr. Cox: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment. The widows of former Members are on very low incomes, but they have pride. They do not want to let people know about their sad circumstances. I am sure that we all understand that. We may tell them it is silly and that they should not feel that way, but they do. We have a duty to respect their attitude. We must consider the issue afresh. We are not talking about vast sums of money. The outgoings of an elderly person are less than those of young people with young children.
I paid tribute to the Leader of the House, and I beg him to look again at the sad and, in some respects, pathetic cases. We know the people involved and want to help them. Will the Leader of the House look seriously at the comments made, not only by me, but by the right hon. Member for Horsham, who made a superb speech, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Whythenshawe.

Mr. Newton: I need respond to the debate only briefly as I sense that the speeches of both my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) were primarily designed to mark the cards of various people—myself, the Treasury and the Senior Salaries Review Body—rather than elicit an immediate response. I hope that I was right to read their remarks in that way.
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Tooting for his kind words about me. I shall try to continue to earn his commendations, as receiving such marks is a relatively rare experience for someone who has been on the Front Bench for as long as I have. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said about the widows of ex-Members.
I was mildly puzzled by the reference of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham to spouses' pensions, as the proposal to increase the proportion from five eighths was specifically rejected by the Top Salaries Review Body in June 1991. It said that our provisions compared favourably with occupational pension schemes generally, 80 per cent. of which continued to provide a spouse's pension of only half the Member's pension. No doubt the SSRB, the successor body to the TSRB, will consider the suggestions of my right hon. Friend and others when it considers the subject following the Government Actuary's valuation of the scheme.
I have had brought to my attention a quotation of which I was previously unaware. Whatever criticisms may be made of, or further improvements sought in, our scheme, as a result of improvements over the years, the scheme is now quite good, and much better than it was. I was mildly amused to read a piece that was thrust into my hand during the debate from an unknown quarter—in fact, a known quarter, but one to which I am not allowed to refer. The piece appeared in "Pensions Today" in July 1991 under the heading "New ideas from Meacher"—it takes us back a little.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Good news.

Mr. Newton: The Opposition Front-Bench team do not want to comment on new ideas from Meacher, which is perhaps understandable.
The extract contained a footnote which stated:
Messrs Meacher and Newton"—
it takes me back a bit—
—and all MPs for that matter—will see their 9 per cent. Parliamentary Pension Scheme contribution tumble to 6 per cent. next April. High accrual rates to reflect what can be foreshortened pensionable careers, plus public sector indexing, make this a splendid bargain.
At least we have some things going for us, even if the House would like to see more being done.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House endorses the proposals to give the trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund power to provide a scheme by which Members may enhance their pensions by making additional voluntary contributions, and to appoint a provider for the scheme.

Orders of the Day — MEMBERS' PENSIONS (CONSOLIDATION)

Ordered,
That this House endorses the proposal to consolidate the regulations governing the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund in one set of regulations, and to incorporate amendments to the Scheme implementing past Top Salaries Review Body recommendations and certain provisions of certain Social Security and Finance Acts.—[Mr. Newton.]

Sports Grounds

Mr. Tom Pendry: I beg to move,
That the Football Spectators Act 1989 (Commencement No. 4) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1690), dated 8th July 1993, be revoked.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
That the Football Spectators (Designation of Football Matches in England and Wales) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1691), dated 8th July 1993, be revoked.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Safety of Sports Grounds (Designation) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 2090), dated 18th August 1993, a copy of whch was laid before this House on 24th August, be annulled.

Mr. Pendry: I notice that we have a new Minister for Sport today in the form of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). It is not surprising—particularly to my hon. Friends—that we have a new Minister, as there have been so many during the past few years.
In view of my desire during the past few years to hurry the Government into bringing into force various sections of the Football Spectators Act 1989, it might be thought by hon. Members that I should be the last person to be moving motions today. However, life is seldom that simple and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I tabled the motions to have an opportunity to debate the effectiveness of the Act in the light of recent developments.
I vividly recall saying when the Taylor report was debated in the House on 30 January 1990:
The report should be seen primarily as a catalyst for debate, not a tablet of stone."—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 237.]
I am only too happy to find that I have been proved right by the passing of time.
Since the recommendations of the Taylor report were accepted, there have been numerous advances that deserve our careful consideration. Many, though not all, supporters have reacted adversely to the proposed changes in the way they watch and enjoy their team perform. They raise many points through their respective organisations, notably the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Supporters Clubs, which we should take care to address on this occasion.
Encouragingly for the organisations, there have been scientific developments in the area of crowd safety since the awful tragedy at Hillsborough.
It is good to see that the Minister has now arrived. I am sure that he will be made aware of the gems which I have made known to the House during his brief absence. I realise that we all have difficulties with transport, and I am sure that the Minister has a good excuse.
It is encouraging for those supporters who have not been happy with all-seated stadiums to see that there have been scientific developments in crowd safety since the Hillsborough tragedy. The innovations were not available to Lord Justice Taylor for his consideration, so they have not been incorporated into his findings.
Opposition Members recognise that the Bradford, Heysel and Hillsborough tragedies demonstrated a problem in need of immediate attention. A sense of urgency prevailed as Lord Justice Taylor took a sensible look at the difficulties of ensuring crowd safety at football


matches, much as Lord Justice Popplewell had done before him. The tragedies at Bradford and Hillsborough and also at the grounds of Bolton and Glasgow Rangers some time before almost certainly stemmed from the 19th-century structure of football in this country and the grounds that were built then have remained with us. Hardly any of our grounds had been improved in any significant way since the last century.
It may interest the House—especially my hon. Friends —to know that the problem of safety at football grounds was first recognised and addressed by the Labour Government of 1924, who realised that significant changes needed to be made to safeguard supporters. It was clear to the Government at that time that the existing terraces needed substantial modification in terms of segregation crush barriers and the like. They went so far as to suggest that grounds should need a licence before clubs were allowed to admit spectators.
It is a great shame that 50 years, and two major accidents at Burnden park and Ibrox park, were allowed to pass before the findings of the 1924 report were fully implemented, alongside other recommendations, in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975—again, I must say, under a Labour Government. Even had those tragedies not occurred, it would be right and proper for clubs to start looking at the safety problems of their antiquated terraces and to work on bringing them into the 20th and 21st centuries.
I know that the all-party football committee of which I was the Chairman took a responsible approach to the challenges of ensuring safety at football grounds. Both Lord Justice Popplewell and Lord Justice Taylor addressed the issues, and we gave evidence to both. Our submissions were largely accepted in their reports.
The Home Affairs Select Committee submitted its report on football hooliganism in February 1991, and the Committee also did sterling work by contributing positively to the debate. Hon. Members who served on the Committee deserve due recognition for their recommendations.
However, even at that time we were concerned that all-seater stadiums might not be the single and complete answer to the problems of safety, hooliganism or even comfort. As early as 1984, a study carried out by the sociology department of Leicester university revealed serious deficiencies in the theory of all-seated stadiums. The clubs themselves have experienced many practical difficulties when trying to change to all-seater stadiums. The House may remember that Coventry City was one of the first clubs to convert to all-seated as early as 1981, but quickly reconverted when fans started to stand on the seats and even tear them up.
Last season, Manchester City built a new all-seater stand at the ground's Platt lane end. The club then found that pitch invasions were being lead by fans from the new stand on the day of its opening.
I know that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) had been here—I know that he had to go to his constituency—he would have intervened at this point to make a point about rugby. My hon. Friend acquired a copy of a disorder report following the Great Britain v. New Zealand rugby league match on 16 October. I believe that the Minister was there. The attendance was 36,131. There were no arrests inside the ground, and no ejections from the ground. There were 70 police on duty, and the report states that outside the ground one person was

arrested and was cautioned. The police inspector in charge at the ground commented that the fans had been absolutely marvellous, and he wished that all fans could be like that. He added that he could see the day when it would not be necessary to police rugby league events inside the ground.
Some soccer fans could learn from the behaviour of their counterparts who go to rugby matches. I am sure that my hon. Friend would have wanted to make that point. I may not have made it as eloquently as he would have, but I am pleased to put the point on record.
For an explanation of the changes to all-seater stadiums have failed to eradicate the unruly elements within a football crowd, we need look no further than the words of Sir Bert Millichip, the chairman of the Football Association who gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee:
experience has taught us that a person can be just as big a hooligan when he is sitting down as when he is standing up.
Many clubs have found that their plans to convert to all-seated stadiums have not found favour with many of their fans. I want to illustrate the supporters' view and to do so I would like to quote from a letter by David Woolf, a Liverpool supporter. His was only one of the many letters which I have received on the subject. He said:
The Government has accepted the fact that standing can be safe, but why for only lower league clubs and not the higher?
That is a point of view which I do not necessarily share.
It is to the eternal credit of the right hon. Member for Putney that, when he was Secretary of State for National Heritage, accepted and acted upon submissions that were given to him verbally and in written form on 11 May 1992 by the all-party football committee delegation. We were able to convince him of the wisdom of exempting third and fourth division clubs from the all-seater requirements of Lord Justice Taylor's report. I hope that the Minister has brought an open mind to the debate and is prepared to consider sensible suggestions on their own merit in the light of changing circumstances.
Finally in this context, I should like to recall a remark made by Lord Justice Taylor:
There is no panacea which will achieve total safety and cure all the problems of behaviour and crowd control.
No one could disagree with that. I believe that the football culture of standing should not be dismissed outright. On the other hand, more and more soccer fans are getting used to sitting and would not want to revert to watching games from standing areas. We would therefore expect a small proportion only of any ground to comprise standing areas.
Recent developments in crowd safety technology, however, mean that we should reconsider our earlier decision to encourage leading clubs to change over entirely to all-seater stadiums. I firmly believe that, in the light of new developments, supporters should be given the opportunity to stand in new, safer areas. They could be given the choice between standing and sitting without detriment to their safety.
Those of us who understand football acknowledge that UEFA and FIFA currently oppose standing areas for much the same reasons as those expressed in the Taylor report; and that that might mean closing certain parts of grounds that are involved in a few international matches, until those bodies are convinced of the safety of standing areas.
The UEFA and FIFA rulings, like the Taylor report, were a direct result of the events of the 1980s. After the crowd tragedy at Hillsborough, scientists at the National Nuclear Corporation Ltd. research establishment at Risley set about creating a system for monitoring crowd pressure.


The system that they developed comprises a network of pressure monitors strategically placed in tunnels, barriers and fences. The sensors are linked to a central bank of monitor screens, and changing colours on the screens will warn the attendants, police and stewards of any change in crowd pressures. They will then be able to take the necessary action.
I have been to see the system and I was impressed with it. The effective use of such a system, combined with intelligent design and rigorous stewarding, should enable clubs to ensure the safety of supporters in a terraced stand. These developments aroused
a great deal of interest from the delegates at the international conference on engineering for crowd safety",
according to Professor Smith, head of Sheffield university's engineering department. Paul Wertheimer of a company called Crowd Management Strategies in the United States, recognised as one of the world's experts in crowd safety matters, has also approved the system, and he has said:
The British are world leaders in the field of crowd safety.
The Metropolitan police used the system at last year's new year's eve festivities, when it helped to save a number of people from serious crush-related injuries. The police were able to detect a build-up of pressure against certain crash barriers and took immediate action, possibly averting the tragic loss of life that has happened before. I hope that the system will begin to prove its worth, as the Metropolitan police will be using it again this year to protect revellers from the danger of injury.
Perhaps more importantly still, the Football Licensing Authority has also visited the NNC and agrees that the system would almost certainly have prevented the Hillsborough disaster. My own club, Derby County, and Blackpool football club have expressed an interest in the system, and executives from the two clubs are due to attend a demonstration of the system soon.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am interested in the line that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing. What would such a system cost? Would it cost so much that the clubs could not generate the money themselves? Or would they perhaps have to look to outside agencies for assistance?

Mr. Pendry: I do not have the exact figures to hand, but I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is less costly to include the system in a new stand than to convert a stand that already has seated accommodation. I hope that funds will be available to help clubs that have already put in seats and which would naturally be upset if they had to change again. Perhaps such funds could come from the Football Trust or the national lottery when it comes on stream—but I will send the details to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
When he was Secretary of State for National Heritage, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) accepted an invitation to attend a demonstration at the NNC, as did the former Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Unfortunately, neither of them managed to attend the demonstration, largely owing to the brevity of their stays at the Department. Now that the Under-Secretary of State has his feet firmly under the table —I am sure that he hopes to keep them there for some time —I trust that he will pick up where his predecessors left off

and accept an invitation to visit the NNC facilities at Risley. On behalf of those at Risley, I gladly extend to him an invitation to do that.
Out of the Hillsborough disaster there has emerged a new industry building good modern stadiums that are designed for comfort and safety, with refreshment areas, creches and the capacity to hold community activities all year round, not just for a few hours on a Saturday afternoon. I have spoken to a number of such firms, including Superstadia Ltd., a stadium designer and builder. It assured me that it was capable of incorporating systems like the one developed by the NNC in such a way as to create a new generation of safe standing areas.
We are all nevertheless aware that good stadium design alone is not enough to ensure the safety of crowds at large sporting events. Both the Taylor and the Popplewell reports highlighted the fact that effective stewarding and policing play a vital part in safety procedures at matches. The Taylor report states that a chain of command must be clearly defined for each ground. At the "Safety In Numbers" conference in August 1992, the chain of command was still not made clear; safety officers were assured that they would be in charge on match day, and police commanders received the same sort of assurances.
The Under-Secretary will be aware that I was engaged in correspondence with the right hon. and learned Member for Putney on this subject and that I sought clarification on it several times. In my letter to him of 16 September 1992 I pointed out the importance of intelligent action by the Government, to allow clubs to use stewards and police in the most effective way to ensure the safety and well-being of supporters.
Following my letter, the assistant chief constable of Greater Manchester, Mr. Malcolm George, undertook an examination of the respective roles of stewards and the police. I hope that the Minister is in a position to tell us the outcome of that review and what guidance the Government have given to all involved in the chain of command.
Time spent debating sporting matters in this place is a valuable commodity. Following yesterday's events in Turkey, it would be easy to be sidetracked by them, to the detriment of other issues to do with our great national game. It must always be remembered that the majority of football supporters in this country are law-abiding citizens whose only wish is to follow their club or national team. They dissociate themselves from the mindless idiots who do so much damage to our reputation abroad.
I should like the genuine fan to be recognised as capable of responsibility, yet he seems to be given no place in real decision making. In the Committee that scrutinised what became the Football Spectators Act 1989, the then Under-Secretary with responsibility for sport made it clear, on 11 July, that he felt that supporters should be involved in the decision-making process—following pressure from Committee members. But little has been done since those fine words were uttered. I have consistently campaigned for supporters to be represented when changes that affect them are made. Norman Jacobs, chairman of the Footall Licensing Authority, has told me of the authority's willingness to give supporters a seat on it.
There is a problem, however, in that supporters have two official voices: the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Supporters Clubs. I urge those two groups to speak with one voice so that it might be heard more clearly at the highest level.
Should the statutory instrument be passed, the timetable for the implementation of the Taylor report will be firmly fixed. However, flexibility is called for with regard to the 1994 and 1997 deadlines for the completion of all-seated stadiums. I urge the Under-Secretary of State to have a thorough review of the new developments on crowd safety with a view to possibly creating safe-standing areas.
To be fair, I agree that a certain element of flexibility has already been established with the Football Licensing Authority's recognition that Birmingham City and Peterborough may have until August 1995 to complete their ground improvements, Bolton Wanderers, Stoke City and West Bromwich Albion may have until August 1996 to comply with the full demands of the safety legislation and the three clubs promoted to the first division at the end of the season may have until August 1997 to upgrade their stadiums. Derby County, Oxford, Portsmouth and Sunderland are committed to relocate their stadiums, and the Football Licensing Authority has said that it is prepared to allow them flexibility.
As a result, next season's first division could feature up to 12 clubs that will not have complied with the August 1994 deadline. The Government should show those clubs understanding on the imposition of deadlines. After all, the FLA should have come into being on 1 June 1990, but in reality was able to begin inspecting grounds only at the beginning of the 1991–92 season, after appointing safety officers in the spring of 1991.
Many of the difficulties that clubs are experiencing relate to problems with financing, as the Under-Secretary of State knows, with planning departments and even with the Department of the Environment, to say nothing of the Home Office. It is only right that clubs are afforded a degree of flexibility commensurate with planning and financial problems and I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
The clubs' commitment to improving their stadiums is on-going, but there is a financial limit to what some clubs can achieve. First division clubs do not generally have the same level of income as those in the FA premier league. The valuable contributions that are made by the Football Trust, helped by the Government's decision to extend the reduction in pool betting duty, are greatly appreciated by the clubs, but each club still has to find a substantial amount of money to finance its ground improvements programme. The same flexibility should also be extended to address the problems of clubs wishing to develop safe-standing areas, once it is established that is precisely what they will be.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that in bringing the motions before the House my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have done a service to football. As long as the Minister is equally constructive in his reply, I shall not proceed to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Ian Sproat): May I begin by apologising to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for being two minutes late for the debate. At least two hon. Members present—the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)—will welcome my reason. I was downstairs in the small

ministerial conference room with a group of students who had come to speak about keeping Wednesday afternoons free for sport.
I saw the name of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde appear on the monitor—I had not been expecting the debate to begin until considerably later—and I ran out of that room telling the students that I was 100 per cent. behind their determination to keep Wednesday afternoons free for sport and to ensure that any change in examination times as a result of semesterisation, or whatever the word may be—that Wednesday afternoon problem writ large —does not detract from the essential nature of having a regular, known, fixed, free time for playing competitive games at universities and to retain the tradition of free Wednesday afternoons.
I have had one helpful meeting on that subject with the Minister at the Department of Education and as the Minister for Sport I am determined to do everything to ensure that Wednesday afternoons remain free.
I hope that with those few words of apology hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel that those two minutes were not wholly wasted. I thank the Opposition for tabling the prayer. Perhaps it is slightly unusual gratitude as it is contrary to the Government's statutory instrument, but the purpose of the prayer, as I take it, is to give us a chance to discuss the extremely important subject of safety at football grounds.
I also thank the usual channels, so well represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) in allowing the debate today as I was disappointed that the turmoil yesterday prevented the debate occurring.
I am sure that the House will agree that our discussions today are timely, given the proximity of the August 1994 deadline for all seating at football grounds in the Premier League and first division, and the strenuous efforts that have been made to improve safety over the past two or three years by clubs, local authorities, the police and the Football Licensing Authority since the Taylor report.
I begin by emphasising that the primary objective underlying all the Government's policies has been to ensure that we never again see the appalling scenes witnessed at Ibrox in 1971, where 66 people tragically died; at Bradford in 1985, where 56 people tragically died; and at Hillsborough in 1989, where 96 people tragically died. The Government and those who run football have a moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure that such disasters are never repeated. I am grateful for the opportunity to demonstrate the Government's continuing commitment to that task.
This important subject has a complex history, so it may be useful if I remind the House of the framework for sports ground safety policy, which provides a balanced and appropriate response to the problems associated with ensuring reasonable safety of the public at sports events.
After the Ibrox disaster of 1971 and the subsequent inquiry by Lord Wheatley, the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 was passed that introduced safety certification by local authorities for grounds with accommodation for 10,000 or more spectators at which football, rugby or cricket is played. The specific technical requirements relating to safety standards at sports grounds were first published in 1972, in the Government's guide to safety at sports grounds.
That "green guide", as it is known, was and still is the chief source of information available for use by local authorities in drawing up the conditions of safety


certificates. It plays a central role in ensuring sports ground safety. Revised editions of the guide were published following the Bradford and Hillsborough disasters, in consultation with local authorities associations and others.
Some have suggested that the advice contained in the guide should be mandatory. We considered that argument carefully, but on balance disagreed. The guide should provide guidance and should act as an aid to rather than substitute for professional judgment and commonsense. There must be discretion to allow for the variations that exist across the 90 or so Football League grounds, not to mention in other leagues and in Scotland.
Of course, the green guide applies not only to football grounds but to all sports grounds, regardless of their size and the sport played. I shall come to the important point that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde made about Wakefield Rugby League.
The task of the certifying authority, acting on the advice of the police, fire and ambulance services and other relevant bodies gathered together in a safety advisory group, is to determine how many spectators may safely be admitted to a ground, taking into account not merely its physical structure, but the club's systems and procedures. Its mechanism for doing that is the safety certificate.
The emphasis is very much on the safety advisory group working as a team to determine what constitutes reasonable safety. However, the ultimate responsibility for safety rests not with the local authority or the police but with the club itself. Later, I shall deal with some of the issues that have been raised in the debate.
Following the fire at Bradford in 1985 and the subsequent inquiry by Lord Justice Popplewell, the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987 modified the 1975 Act and established a parallel system of safety certification for any stand at any sports ground with accommodation for 500 or more spectators.
The Football Spectators Act 1989, which followed the Heysel tragedy, created the Football Licensing Authority. The authority is charged with operating a licensing scheme for grounds at which designated matches are played, and also with keeping under review the discharge by local authorities of their functions under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 that I have already mentioned.
After the publication of Lord Justice Taylor's report into the Hillsborough disaster, the Football Licensing Authority was also charged with advising the Government on the introduction of all-seater accommodation at Football League grounds and the national stadiums. Following the Government's review last year of the all-seater policy, the authority was also charged with ensuring that any terracing retained by second and third division clubs of the Football League meets the necessary safety standards.
Together, these measures are intended to ensure that spectators at sports events, and in particular those attending football matches, receive the highest standards of safety to which they are surely entitled. They ensure that the needs of safety and security do not get out of balance, as they did at Hillsborough, and that there is no confusion about who is responsible for safety. They also ensure that football clubs themselves accept their responsibility for safety within their grounds and develop a safety culture that permeates their entire thinking right up to boardroom level.
The three statutory instruments form an integral part of this comprehensive legislative programme. Therefore, I shall make clear the purpose of the three orders that have been brought into force. As the House is aware, one was brought into force under the Safety of Sports Ground Act 1975, and the other two under the Football Spectators Act 1989. All three are essentially tidying-up measures.
Under section 1(1) of the Safety of Sports Grounds 1975 Act, the Secretary of State may designate as requiring a safety certificate issued by the local authority any sports ground with accommodation for more than 10,000 spectators at which football, rugby or cricket is played. Statutory instrument No. 2090 simply designates for that purpose the grounds of three Football League clubs—Millwall, Walsall and Wickham—which have recently relocated. It also removes from the list of designated grounds their former venues, which have been demolished.
Statutory instrument No. 1690 brought into force on 1 August this year section 9 of the Football Spectators Act 1989. This makes it an offence to admit spectators to watch a football match designated under the Act unless the premises where the match is played are licensed by the Football Licensing Authority. The aim of the licensing system is to ensure that clubs meet the Government's August 1994 deadline for all-seater accommodation at Premier League and first division football grounds.
Although the all-seater deadline is August 1994, the Government and the licensing authority shared the view that the introduction of licensing without conditions in 1993 would allow any problems with the process to be ironed out prior to the deadline, and would provide a signal of the Government's resolve on this issue.
Statutory instrument No. 1691 is also made under the 1989 Act with the purpose of amending the definition of a designated football match. Under section 10 of the Football Spectators Act 1989, the Football Licensing Authority is charged with issuing licences to admit spectators to any premises for the purpose of watching any designated football match that is played there. The authority is also charged under section 13 of the 1989 Act with keeping under review the discharge by local authorities of their safety certification functions under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 in relation to a sports ground at which designated football matches are played.
The order revokes the original definition of a designated football match contained in statutory instrument No. 731, 1990, and substitutes a simpler one. As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) knows, the new definition excludes, for example, the more than 30 non-league grounds which, although designated as grounds requiring safety certificates under the 1975 Act, do not require the involvement of the Football Licensing Authority.
Therefore, the new definition is to be drawn tighter to catch only those football matches played at Premier League and Football League grounds. Consequently, the Football Licensing Authority is able to concentrate on those grounds to which the Government's post-Taylor safety policies apply.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde opened the debate rightly and understandably focused on the Government's requirement that football clubs in the Premier League and the first division should have all-seater stadiums by August 1994, or by three years after they are promoted to the first division, whichever is later.
As the House knows, the all-seater policy underwent comprehensive review in 1992. Interested organisations, including the football authorities, the police and supporters' groups, were consulted on a number of issues, one of which was the possibility of applying the all-seater policy according to average attendances or ground capacities. As the House will recall, following the review, the Government decided that, to focus resources more effectively on the area of greatest need, clubs in what are now the second and third divisions would be permitted to retain some terracing, provided it was safe.
Throughout Europe and much of the world, the benefits of all-seater stadiums are widely accepted. European football's ruling body, UEFA, has recently decided that grounds staging matches in the European championships and the three European club competitions must be all-seater by 1998. Already, all high-risk matches in continental Europe can be played only in front of all-seater crowds. Italy already has an all-seater legacy from the 1990 World cup, France is working towards UEFA's deadline as host for the 1998 World cup, and in Holland, premier division grounds must be all-seater by 1997.
The world football body, FIFA, banned terracing for the World cup finals in 1980 and for all qualifying rounds from 1992. Outside soccer, the Rugby Union grounds at Twickenham and Murray field will shortly be all-seater too.
I shall now deal with the issue of enforcing through the FLA all-seater stadiums. The mechanism for achieving that will be the licence granted by the Football Licensing Authority. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde properly spoke about clubs that may seek an extension to the deadline. The majority of clubs required to meet the deadline have either done so already or will do so very soon. However, I recognise that a minority of clubs face problems in meeting the deadline. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is dutifully in his place. No doubt he will wish to speak about these matters.
I assure the House that, in the course of the present season, the FLA will consult those clubs and their local authorities. On the basis of those consultations, it will recommend to the Government on a case-by-case basis whether an extension should be granted. It is possible that some strong arguments for extra time could be put by one or two clubs that are engaged in relocating to new sites, but the FLA has made it clear that it cannot consider requests for relaxation of the all-seater requirement unless it has clear evidence that the exemption will be for a strictly limited period, and that the club can realistically complete its relocation within a reasonable and definite time scale.
I recognise that some clubs may have encountered difficulties in obtaining planning permission, either for relocation or for the redevelopment of their existing grounds. In anticipation of that, the Department: of the Environment issued advice to local planning authorities in the form of planning policy guidance note No. 17 in 1991. However, the onus must be on the clubs themselves to develop realistic proposals in consultation with their local authorities. When the club and the local authority are in harness, the results can be spectacular. For example, the new stadium at Millwall went from concept to reality in less than two years.
I know that many hon. Members are concerned about the cost, to which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde referred, of implementing the all-seater policy. I remind the House of the considerable assistance provided

by the Government through the Football Trust and arising from the Chancellor's decision in 1990 to reduce the pools betting duty from 42.5 to 40 per cent. for a period of five years.
Around £20 million each year has been provided for soccer as a result of that concession. In March 1992, the Government announced that they would consider favourably the case for extending the concession for a further five years, provided that the football authorities and the clubs demonstrated that they would find a substantial share of the full costs. As hon. Members will recall, following a careful assessment of progress made to date and the nature of the work still required to be completed, the Government announced on 4 August this year that the concessions will be extended for a further five years—that is, until the year 2000.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raised extremely important detailed points about Risley and the report from the Association of Chief Police Officers. If it is for the convenience of the House, I will answer those points when other hon. Members have had a chance to speak, and then I can draw all the matters of detail together. I hope that, in my opening remarks, I have made clear the complexity of the history of this important subject, the purpose of the statutory instruments and the seriousness with which the Government take the matter.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the Minister said, he missed the kick-off, but only by a moment or two and he has a perfectly sound excuse for doing so. He told the House that he had been engaged in discussion as to how the traditional Wednesday afternoons in universities and institutions of higher learning can be preserved for sporting purposes. With the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), I visited the Minister earlier this year and took part in an extremely constructive discussion. He encouraged me and, I am sure, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde by the positive response that he gave then and has done so again by his positive response this afternoon.
It is a long way from the days of the Football Spectators Bill. If my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you had the honour and privilege of chairing the Committee that considered that Bill. I well remember the intemperate language in which some of the exchanges in that Committee were couched. I see that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who is also a survivor of that Committee, is here. It is a measure of how far we have come since then that we can exchange observations on those matters in such a sober and civilised way. There was something of a frantic atmosphere at that stage, some of it engendered by anxiety over Hillsborough.
I also recall that Lord Justice Taylor's report arrived as a breath of sound common sense. Some hon. Members may remember that it was his response to the idea of identity cards for football supporters that was probably the most persuasive factor in convincing the Government that they should abandon that proposal. That showed a measure of sound common sense, to which I hope that they will continue to adhere.
In the matter of all-seater stadiums, I support the view expressed by the Minister rather than that expressed by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. However, if, as he


tells us, the technology has advanced, it would be only right and proper to consider the extent to which that has occurred. My only difficulty is that, as the Minister said, many clubs have already gone down that road and there might be problems if that process were put into reverse. Therefore, I suspect that, even if the technology is available in the terms being discussed, it might be something of an obstruction if we were to give too much credence to it. I have an open mind on the matter—I would not want the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde to think that my mind was closed. However, I am a supporter of all-seater stadiums.
The Government were right, and sensible, to take the view that they did on what used to be called the third and fourth divisions of the football league. The Minister spoke of clubs in the Premiership and first division which may not yet have achieved the necessary standards. I hope that he will encourage the Football Licensing Authority to be realistic in its approach. It would be easy for it to be unnecessarily rigid and draconian. Such an approach is bound to appeal to the mind of a licensing authority because the purpose of all this is to provide for safety. We should never forget that the safety of spectators is fundamental. If achieving safety means changing the culture of the game slightly, that is a price that I would be willing to pay.
Lord Justice Taylor's report provided a substantial blueprint for the way in which the game might develop. In particular, it is a pity that his trenchant observations about the attitude of the football authorities towards the fans have not been taken up rather more forcefully. As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde pointed out, there are two national bodies and it might be for the benefit of football supporters and spectators if they came together and created one national federation, speaking with one voice.
The role of the spectator and the supporter is not yet one to which the football authorities give sufficient regard. If one is anxious to change the culture so that, for example, reports such as that about the rugby league match—to which reference has been made—could be made about football, that would best be done through the football supporters association. It is a matter of culture. Rugby league remains a sport firmly rooted in the culture of those who support it and are interested in it, in just the way that football is. The fans still sing "Abide with me" at rugby league finals, but one would not dare to sing it at the football cup final when, 40 or 50 years ago, it was as much a part of the proceedings as anything else.

Mr. John Fraser: It still is.

Mr. Campbell: I am delighted to hear that. I had understood that it had to be dropped because, on occasion, the nature of the participation in it was not particularly religious. If I am wrong, I am delighted to hear that.

Mr. Pendry: Do they not sing it in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: No. They have not started to sing it at the Scottish cup final and it may be some time before they begin to do so. They are more interested in singing "Flower of Scotland".

Sir Peter Emery: It might be better if they did.

Mr. Campbell: If the right hon. Gentleman is making a comment about Scottish fans, he should realise that it has become a matter of pride among Scottish fans going abroad that they behave themselves. Andy Roxburgh, the recently retired manager of the Scottish team, had a lot to do with that. He created a relationship between the team and the supporters who went abroad. The supporters were proud of going abroad and anxious to show that they could behave themselves when they did.
There has been a substantial improvement in football. It has become more of a family activity, more women go to matches and family enclosures have become part and parcel of the facilities at many grounds. In that sense, there has been a substantial improvement in the past five or 10 years, but there is more to be done. In a week when people have been arrested when allegedly supporting Manchester United abroad, we must realise that more needs to be done about that problem. I doubt whether it makes much difference to the reputation of the United Kingdom abroad, but such activity upsets the attitude of the ordinary law-abiding supporter who is unhappy about being described as a hooligan and being tarred with the same brush.
The honest, law-abiding supporter is therefore as much the victim of the activity of a few hooligans as is the game. We should do everything in our power to ensure that those whose interest is not in the game but in the amount of trouble and mayhem that they can create off the back of the game are dissuaded from supporting it.
This is a substantial issue of culture. I was thinking, as the debate unfolded, that there was terracing at Murrayfield for a long time and it was somewhere that one could go quite reasonably and in a relaxed fashion. However, a stage arose at which, as a result of the amount of drink that was being consumed outside and brought into the stadium, it became extremely uncomfortable to stand on the terracing at Murrayfield. The legislation that had the effect of banning the taking of alcohol into the ground had a remarkable impact upon behaviour. The difference was extraordinary.
Murrayfield has moved on to be an all-seater stadium. It has not been completed in time for the visit of the All Blacks in a fortnight or so, but in due course it will be an all-seater stadium. That seems to be an ideal towards which we should persuade football clubs to aim. Therefore, although I understand that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde is anxious to allow for the possibility of standing, using new technology, I feel that the game will best be secured, and especially will more easily become a focus for families, if we continue to move as firmly as we have in the past to all-seater stadiums.
More has to be done in the interests of the ordinary football supporter. The Government can encourage that, but only the football authorities and the clubs can bring it about. If we give that encouragement here in the House by our support for measures which have the effect of giving a better deal to the supporter, I suspect that we shall do as much for the game as any piece of legislation can.

Mr. John Greenway: I must first apologise to the House for having missed the kick-off of the debate. It has been rather difficult in the past 24 hours to form a judgment as to precisely when this match would take place. While the attendance is rather thin, and perhaps more in


keeping with what we might regard as a reserve fixture, the quality of what I have heard—and I hope the quality of the rest of the debate—will make up for the thin attendance.
I thank the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for giving the House the opportunity to discuss these matters, albeit in trying to negative what the Government have decided. Nevertheless, we do not get the chance to discuss football in the House as often as perhaps we should.
I must remind the House of my interest as the president of York City football club. Had the debate been timed four or five weeks ago, I might have been tempted to suggest that York City would be one of those clubs that might be facing the difficulty of moving from the second division to the first division at the end of the season because at that time we were about fourth equal in the second division, since when we have lost about four times on the trot and I do not think that we even scored a goal. Who knows; we might still be faced with the embarrassment of needing to consider how we should move to an all-seater stadium.
It would be difficult for us to achieve that, and it would be extremely expensive. None the less I think that, on balance, after the two or three years that we have spent arguing and discussing the issue, we have probably got it about right in saying that the Premier League and the first division clubs should have all-seater grounds, but that, in the second and third divisions, it makes sense to have standing available, certainly for the foreseeable future of the next five to 10 years. A great deal of money is needed to improve grounds throughout the country in all four divisions.
The one thing that appeals to me about all-seater grounds, especially for the bigger clubs where vie have bigger crowds, is the resulting improvement in crowd control. When the Home Affairs Select Committee considered the policing of football hooliganism, it came across strongly that troublemakers, standing in mass terracing, can easily move around and incite others to commit offences and cause trouble. It is much more difficult to achieve that if everyone has to sit down.
If any of us took the trouble to sit in the police control room at some of our big grounds we would notice the difference now. I think especially of Arsenal. I remember taking my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) to Arsenal when there were a lot of fans standing on the terraces behind the goals at both ends of the pitch. I think that it was a game against Sunderland. There was not a huge number of arrests; there was not a lot of trouble, but the pre-emptive policing enabled the police to stop the trouble.
The fact that these lads were able to move around was the real difficulty. Now that they have to pay £12 to £15 for a seat, they sit down and behave themselves. Although it is regrettable that some youngsters find it difficult to afford to get to matches quite as often—we are certainly noticing that in the gates at soccer grounds—we have successfully policed some of the trouble out by price and by making the fans feel much more part of the club, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said.
I make one other point regarding Arsenal football club. The difficulty with all-seater stadiums is how we segregate crowds when on match days people turn up at a big ground without a ticket and buy one off a tout. We have to tackle that problem. At Arsenal, because they could see that difficulty, they devised a scheme with the police at Highbury so that the tickets said that they may not be

resold without the express permission of Arsenal football club and that the football club had the right to refuse admission or to eject someone from the ground if the condition was breached.
On the first day, the police observed what was going on, they stopped some touts and told them that they believed that in selling the tickets without the permission of Arsenal football club the touts were committing the offence of deception under the Theft Act 1968. They have subsequently, on successive Saturdays, made arrests and that matter now rests with the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman may know that ticket touting is a subject about which I have been concerned for some time. Does he recall that the Taylor report expressly recommended that a criminal offence of ticket touting, I think within the environs of a ground within 12 hours before the kick-off, should be made a specific criminal offence?

Mr. Greenway: That is exactly right. I was coming to that in a second. I just want to finish off the point about Arsenal. I do not believe that it is for the House and for hon. Members, with the benefit of the privilege that we have on the Floor of the House, to put unnecessary pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service. I see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is sitting on the Front Bench, which is extremely convenient. Were the arrangement that Arsenal and the police in north London have devised found to be satisfactory, it might avoid the need to have the type of ticket tout legislation which I know some hon. Members on both sides of the House think would create more difficulties than it would solve. I encourage the Minister to take an interest in the point and to see whether we cannot ensure that there is a prosecution.
It must be in the public interest to find out whether what Arsenal devised would actually work. It is extremely straightforward. If someone buys a ticket which states that it cannot be sold to anyone else without the express permission of the football club, and if the ticket is then sold on, it is quite clear that whoever buys it is not guaranteed entry to the ground. It is a deception and that principle should be tried and heard in a court of law.

Mr. Pendry: I have been following the hon. Gentleman. It was not just Lord Justice Taylor, but the Home Affairs Select Committee of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, made four recommendations in relation to legislation, three of which were accepted by the Government—racist or obscene shouting, throwing missiles and invasion of pitch.
The one recommendation that the Government have not enacted applies to ticket touting. I have asked the Prime Minister on a number of occasions when he planned to do something about it and he said that he would when parliamentary time allowed.
I hope that the Minister will take on board what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Whether it takes the form of the Arsenal scheme or some other, the Government should address such an important problem.

Mr. Greenway: Both Opposition Members have made the point that there have been numerous recommendations that ticket touting should be abolished. I would simply say to my hon. Friend that a reasonable quid pro quo for the Premier League and first division clubs taking the initiative


and grasping the nettle and making the grounds all-seater, should be the recognition that this creates a problem with segregation.
The ticket touts are an absolute menace. They are telling people outside Finsbury Park tube station, "This game is sold out and you cannot get a ticket," yet there will be 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 tickets on sale at the football ground on the day of the match. It has to be stopped. It certainly will not help to ensure the safety, comfort and peaceable enjoyment of a football match by other spectators if, because of the lack of segregation caused by this problem, we see violence erupting in our stands. That is not what we want.

Sir Peter Emery: Given the agreement across the Floor of the House, even if the Government take no action, we are coming up to the stage when new private Member's legislation will be introduced, and such a measure would fit very well into a private Member's Bill.

Mr. Greenway: Perhaps one or two of us who have an interest in these matters might be fortunate enough to come high enough in the private Members' ballot.
If the arrangement which Arsenal has made with the police were properly tested in a court of law and found to be satisfactory, we might find a way of dealing with touts without having to create more public order offences, as a complete ban on ticket touts might envisage.
I shall not take up too much time, but it is important that we keep faith with clubs which have taken the initiative on the all-seater issue and responded to the Government's decision.
I have been to two or three all-seater grounds this season. They are absolutely marvellous and the fans appreciate that they can enjoy the game in much greater comfort than in the past. In time, supporters will get used to the fact that they have to sit down and not stand up.
Finally, let me move on to the second and third division clubs. There is a danger that, in concentrating on making the Premier League and first division club grounds all-seater in such a relatively short time, we could be lulled into thinking that the need for significant resources to improve soccer grounds is at an end. That is not the case. My regular Saturday afternoon with York City involves going to the poorer places. We need to spend many hundreds of millions of pounds improving those grounds. The clubs already find it extremely difficult to make ends meet even without incurring capital expenditure on building new stands.
I shall make two final points. My hon. Friend may not like this, but we have to be aware of the potential effects of the lottery on pools income. Without the Football Trust, we could not have paid for all the improvements to the smaller grounds.
Let me talk for a moment about York City. One of our players, David Longhurst, died on the pitch. We launched an appeal for a new stand in his name. Basically, it is a roof over the popular end of the ground, which has made a huge difference to supporters. We could not have done that without a significant contribution from the Football Trust. We have just built a new family stand in front of half the main stand and we would like to build in front of the other half. York City football club cannot do it without the help

of the trust. There are many more clubs in a similar position, so I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that resources will continue to be available to make improvements.
As I go round the country watching football, I detect a new spirit within the game. It is sad that our national English side has not performed as well as we would have liked and, barring a miracle, is unlikely to play in the World cup. That is one headline which makes the future of football look less certain. Let me assure my hon. Friend that there is a good spirit throughout the game and improvements are being made. We need to continue to be flexible and ensure that the Football Licensing Authority responds to the individual needs of clubs.
I am quite convinced that with the good will and the continuing support of the Government and both sides of the House we shall see our national game move into a bright future through the rest of this century and into the next one.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Before we go ahead with the orders and consider all the bright plans for new subsidies—like the ones to the farmers—for the clubs, registers of ticket touts and identity cards for everyone, we should ensure that the regulations take account of the real problems of real clubs.
At a rather bleak time for English football, I want to mention Southend United football club. It is a rather remarkable club. When I became the Member of Parliament for Southend some 13 years ago, the club was at the bottom of the fourth division. Now it is near the top of the first division and likely to be in the Premier League next year. It is a remarkable success story. I am not claiming personal credit for it in any way, although I attend games regularly.
It is run not by a crowd of rascals, but by super people. Vic Jobson, the chairman, not only runs a good football club in a businesslike way; he also ensures that the club pays huge attention to its social obligations. A social club for young people in Southend has been established off Eastern avenue to give them the advantage of playing football and other sports.
Only last week, we heard of the club's plan to take over the Kursaal in Southend, which used to be a great social centre. They are going to make it a drug-free area. It is a good club run by exciting people. It has had fantastic success.
However, Southend United football club has had plans for many years to build a super new stadium instead of the present Roots Hall stadium in the centre of the town. The club has been desperately anxious to do it, but has not been able to go ahead.
First, it sought permission for a new ground at Southend airport where there is plenty of land, but, as the Minister is well aware, since, like me, he has moved to the south of England, unfortunately everybody objects to everything. If there is the possibility of a car or anything that might take an extra pound off the value of a house or the slightest possibility of any inconvenience, people want to oppose it.
There was massive opposition to the airport development, so Southend United suggested Eastern avenue, a nice open place not far from my own home. It would be an ideal place for a new stadium and linked sports facilities for the whole community. That attracted objections from some people.
Southend borough council had an exciting new plan from developers to build a supermarket. We have many other supermarkets in Southend, but the council offered a planning gain of some exciting facilities nearby. Unfortunately, that did not happen. In desperation, the club then asked the local community, the Football League and everybody else, including the Minister, "We want to build a new stadium, but is there anywhere in the world that we can build it?"
Happily, after a great deal of discussion it was put to the club that there was a lovely site in Sutton road, next to the cemetery and an industrial site. Rather reluctantly, the club agreed to spend a great deal of money building what it wanted to be an exciting new ground. Unfortunately, as the Minister is well aware, the site is also next to a place called Rochford—another delightful residential area near Southend. Yet again, everyone objected for all sorts of reasons—including a local farmer who thought that there might be a possibility of making more money from having a new road constructed through the area. One of the most interesting aspects of life in Southend is how the farmers —a group whom my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) represents so enthusiastically—appear to be so interested in new road developments.
That plan for the club went down the chute and, again in desperation—and despite its deep commitment to Southend and its huge support there—the club thought about going to a place called Basildon, which is not far from Southend. As we know, Basildon is a rather unusual place in many respects—but a rather lovely place, too. It is represented by a Conservative Member of Parliament. The club entered into long discussions, but, sad to say, it appeared that Basildon did not want it.
Southend's present ground is rather unusual—it is built on an old rubbish dump, which makes matters rather difficult. The stand in which I sit tends to sink about 3 in every year. While we are waiting to proceed with a new ground, bright ideas keep coming from the Minister, who says that the club has to do lots of things. We already have the stand where I tend to sit and also a new stand—built at huge expense—for families so that wives and children can happily attend matches. There are also a large number of new facilities. Each new entrance that has to be built because of the Taylor report causes great anxiety. There is also a small area where people can stand.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that, in introducing all the bright new regulations saying that clubs have to do such and such by a certain time, he should remember that some clubs that are successful, vigorous, enthusiastic and have the support of the local community find doing those things impossible. What do they do if they cannot do those things? What do we do with a club that says, "We have tried everything. We are even prepared to go to Basildon, which is quite something, but we cannot get permission to go. What are we meant to do?" The Government are telling it to spend more and more money on its present site, which is on top of a rubbish dump. That is very sad.
My second point, which is very important, is to question why my hon. Friend the Minister says that we cannot provide a space for people to stand. I do not understand it. We hear about alleged safety considerations, but. having studied reports of the great disasters, I very much doubt whether standing facilities would create a special problem.

The facility could be provided within the safety considerations. Safety men are posted at almost every part of the ground.
Because of the Taylor report, there is also a huge police force at the ground. They are delightful people, but we can scarcely move for policemen and horses. It really does not promote law and order when policemen are standing all around the ground looking into the crowd and policemen and horses are outside the ground where people park their cars. Sometimes, that is not conducive to creating what might be called the "appropriate situation". Of course, the club also has its own security staff.
Why on earth do the Government want to do away with standing room? Southend has a small area put aside for that. My boys like to go there because there is a different atmosphere and it is cheaper. Are we to make football matches a middle-class pastime for those who can afford to pay £12 or £15 a ticket? A large number of people cannot afford that much these days, so they will not go to matches.
Finally, I want to talk about the possibility of further legislation and appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister not to introduce any. We do not need new laws and new restrictions. Almost everywhere I look, new quangos, new boards, new councils and new commissions are being established. It must stop. It is the sort of action that we used to expect Labour Governments to take.
If there is to be a register of ticket touts, no doubt that will require a huge office. Officials will want to hold consultations, to fly to Europe, to employ consultants and to have photopasses for everyone. What is the point of establishing a register to stop ticket touts operating outside a football ground when they will simply go down the road and operate in the pub? New legislation would be mad.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to introduce any new laws or to set up any new committees. I want him to think about the effect on some clubs that are success stories. Southend is having to spend a fortune on an old ground because it cannot move to the exciting new ground that it wants.
I know the new Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat)—because he comes from Scotland. He is a vigorous, enthusiastic and committed politician. He likes to get things done and he has a superb reputation for integrity, vision and all the other attributes that make a good Minister. I make one minor plea to him—will he come to Southend, visit Roots Hall and meet Vic Jobson and the board? He could then also meet the wonderful players, who are some of the nicest people in the world.
There is a danger—you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, must be aware of it, because you have to listen to so many debates—that everything now involves new rules, new regulations, new boards, new commissions and people running here and there. I ask my hon. Friend to remember that football is a spectator game, which the players enjoy playing. Introducing so many new rules and regulations creates the danger that something very important could be destroyed.
I hope that my hon. Friend can give me one simple assurance. I appreciate that he has a busy timetable with a great many important meetings to attend and consultants to see. No doubt a great many civil servants want to put new ideas to him. I ask him to come to Roots Hall. I promise him that he will see a great game. He will also see some of the very serious problems that decent, respectable, successful clubs are having to face because of the crazy


insistence on rushing everything through by a certain date. There can be special problems. With such an excellent Minister, I hope that the Government will concentrate on having rather less regulation, fewer committees, fewer controls and more common sense.

Mr. John Fraser: I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in one proposition, but disagree with him in another. On the question of ticket touting, there would be little disagreement throughout the country that it is infuriating when people who do not have tickets for a match are exploited by touts and often sent to the wrong part of the ground. We should not have to rely on a private Member's Bill to deal with the problem. There will be a criminal justice Bill in the next Session and it would be relatively easy to include a couple of clauses to outlaw ticket touting, in line with the recommendations that have been made.
We need to speak up for those who believe that standing at football matches is enjoyable. It is probably a losing battle, but if we can preserve a degree of standing I should welcome that, for two reasons. First, we are losing the choral capacity of the crowd. When we attend a performance of the Messiah, people do not sit down to sing the big choruses; they stand up. Without standing room at football matches, we will lose the choral capacity—the group wit—that is one of the redeeming and enjoyable parts of attending a football match.
Secondly, there is a family issue. We cannot any longer, at short notice—as I have done at Crystal Palace—get together one's sons, daughters, boyfriends and so on to attend a match when there is no standing room. With seats, one would be in one part, one in another and the two with season tickets would be together. The family atmosphere —the bringing together of people in response to a run of popularity or a highlight match—is no longer possible. I might be in the minority, but, subject to safety standards, it is my view that many people believe that standing at matches can be enjoyable, safe, worth while and family based.

Mr. Sproat: A number of extremely important points have been raised in the debate, and I will do my best to cover as many as I can in the short time remaining.
First—very appropriately with you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is the question of rugby league, which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) mentioned on behalf of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I know that the hon. Member for Wakefield wished to speak yesterday, but I understand that he is in his constituency today. Rugby league could not have a more persistent or persuasive champion than the hon. Member for Wakefield.
I am acutely conscious of the problem of rugby league grounds. Simply stated, all problems of crowd control arose from soccer. Soccer is getting a great deal of financial help to pay for its crowd control problems, but there are no problems of crowd control in rugby league, and rugby league is getting very little financial assistance to help make its stadiums comply with the standards of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975.
I am aware of the problem and I will do everything that I can to help. I have agreed to meet the chairman of the Rugby League, Mr. Walker, and the chief executive, Mr. Maurice Lindsay, to see whether more money can be made available. Wakefield rugby club received £100,000 from the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, but that club alone needs something like half a million pounds to meet safety standards. It is a very serious financial problem, but I will do everything I can to help. I ask the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, to pass on my comments to the hon. Member for Wakefield.
I attended the first international between Great Britain and the Kiwis. It was a terrific occasion, attended by 36,000 people, and there was no sign of trouble anywhere. If we can raise the behaviour of association football supporters to half that level, we will have done a good job. I pay great tribute to the way in which rugby league supporters follow their marvellous sport.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde asked whether I would consider any new suggestions with an open mind. I certainly will. The particular suggestion that he was considering was the NNC system of crush barriers. I should be interested to see how the Risley system works. Perhaps he could arrange for me to see it, and accompany me on my visit. The Risley system, or any system like it, has potential applications outside football and maybe for football as well, so I shall certainly want to look at it.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raised the subject of communications between stewards and the police, and referred to Mr. Malcolm George and the 1992 report of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The report gives good, detailed guidance and goes into detail about such matters as who should tell a referee to stop a match in cases of riot. It is an excellent report and it may assist the House if I arrange for a copy of it to be laid in the Library, where anyone who is interested in this subject can read it.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raised san extremely important point about increasing the involvement of supporters in soccer clubs. That has many ramifications. It is difficult when there are two groups representing supporters—I think that the House is agreed on that—and I should welcome new ideas about how we can involve supporters more.
There is a lot of feeling in the country at large that supporters of soccer clubs often find themselves treated not too well, and big money counts for more than they do. I am thinking, for example, of clubs changing kits every season and supporters having to buy new kits which cost as much as £50. Supporters ought to be consulted more and if any hon. Member has any ideas as to how that can be done, I should be interested to hear them.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) was concerned about Wednesday afternoons at universities, and I am 100 per cent. behind what he proposes. I am determined to see that university sport does not die out because it is played at different times at different universities and no proper fixture list can be drawn up. I also agree with his remarks about how the law-abiding soccer supporter is tarnished, most unfairly, with the reputation that the hooligans have given to the game.
I do not have a great deal of time left; if I had, I would agree with other hon. Members about the pleasures of standing. I also stood at Murrayfield, and have stood at various football grounds around the country. I agree with


the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) about the pleasures of standing, but, unfortunately, safety has to come first—hence the emphasis that we have put on the provision of all-seater stadiums in the premier league and the first division.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) gave an interesting example of how Arsenal is dealing with ticket touts. I agree that the Government should look at that idea carefully and I undertake to do so. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to have some further discussions with me to make sure that I have not missed some of the important details of this interesting scheme.
As for legislation, that is a matter for the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) will not like this part of my remarks, but I understand that the Home Office is keen to bring in a law as soon as a suitable opportunity arises.
The other important point of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale was about the effect on the pools industry of the national lottery. The pools industry finances the Football Trust, which enables so many grounds to make the improvements necessary for all-seaterisation, if I can use a ghastly word. The judgment of the House is that the pools will not be badly affected. We should not guess at that, but monitor the situation carefully, see what happens and, if necessary, return to the subject. That is the straightforward way to deal with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East is extremely knowledgeable about these matters, and I have discussed with him many of the problems facing Southend United recently, particularly the problem with the planning authorities. My hon. Friend invited me to take account of the real problems of real clubs. He made an important point which went to the heart of the matter. The real problem for successive Governments arose from tragedies such as

Ibrox, Bradford and Hillsborough. It was Lord Justice Taylor's conclusion that all-seater stadiums were the best single way of dealing with hooliganism, although not a panacea. I should be very interested to visit Southend and to see its splendid pier and splendid football club, but I can discuss that with my hon. Friend outside the Chamber.
I have dealt with the point about touts that was raised by the hon. Member for Norwood. On his point about standing, I share his nostalgic but practical view about families, but the Government's policy is as stated and, as he said, standing is a romantic notion which we may have to turn our backs on.
I invite the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde to say a few closing words.

Mr. Pendry: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly.
This has been all too short a debate, as sports debates usually are, but it has been constructive. I thank the Minister for dealing positively with some of the points that have been put to him.
I should like to go to Risley with the Minister. The supporters association will hear what he has said; that is good news, and many of us can add to that particular input into the Minister's thinking. I am pleased that Malcolm George's report will be in the Library for all to see.
The world has moved on since the Taylor report. British technology is recognised as the best in the world for crowd safety. Lord Justice Taylor said in his report that complacency is the enemy of safety, and that must be remembered. I hope that the Minister will have an open mind about many of these issues.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Parliamentary Questions

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That this House approves the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure on Parliamentary Questions (House of Commons Paper No. 687).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With the permission of the House, that motion will be taken with the next on the Order Paper:
That Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments) be amended—
in line 11, by leaving out "written or priority" and inserting "or";
in line 12, at the end, by inserting "and a Member may indicate a date for answer of a question for written answer in accordance with paragraph (4) of this order"; and
in line 14, by leaving out "priority written answer" and inserting "written answer on a named day".

Mr. Newton: The bonhomie that seems to pervade the Chamber this evening is in marked contrast to the situation 24 hours ago, when I announced that we were to debate the messages from another place on the Railways Bill. I prefer tonight's atmosphere, and I hope that I carry the House with me in that. Apart from that event, the past couple of days have had something of an incestuous air, as we come to discuss yet another aspect of our own affairs.
I will refer also to the second motion in my name on the Order Paper, which gives effect to various technical amendments to Standing Order No. 18 that are consequential on the House's approval of the Committee's report.
This is the first occasion on which the House has had an opportunity to debate a report from the Procedure Committee, which was re-established in December 1992. As in previous Parliaments, the Committee sits under the distinguished chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), to whom I pay tribute for the immense interest and diligence with which he and his colleagues have over a long period pursued matters relating to the procedures of the House.
The topic that we are debating this evening originates in a report from the Committee towards the end of the last Parliament, which contained 24 recommendations covering aspects of the arrangements for questions and the rules of order governing them.
The Government's response said that we had a number of reservations about some of the recommendations—in particular, the proposal to reduce the maximum period of notice for oral questions from 10 to five sitting days. The Committee re-examined those points again and has presented in its new report a statesmanlike compromise —as I would expect of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton—on most of the points of disagreement that the Government, who in this context mean me, in my equally statesmanlike manner, are prepared to accept. On that basis, the Government ask the House to approve the new report as a whole.
If my right hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may want to say something about the details of the Committee's report. I will say a few words about the practical effect of the motion. Most of the Committee's

recommendations can be implemented administratively under Madam Speaker's authority, but a number need the approval of the House.
The first of those is the ration for oral questions. Under the rules adopted in 1972, each right hon. or hon. Member is allowed up to eight oral questions on the Order Paper. Under the new system of printing many fewer oral questions, that limit has become redundant, and should now be dropped.
The rules also provide that not more than two oral questions per Member may appear on the Order Paper for answer on any one day. That limit only has any practical application on Mondays, when a number of different Ministers—I will not call them minor Departments, since mine is one of them—answer questions after 10 minutes past 3 o'clock. The Committee recommended that that limit should be retained and that in future, no more than two oral questions per Member per day should be tabled.
The second matter is priority written questions. The Committee expressed concern—which the Government fully share, and which I personally have felt for some time —about the possible misuse of priority written questions. The Committee reminded the House that
the priority marking should be used sparingly and selectively
and that
the earliest permitted date should be reserved for those questions to which an urgent answer is genuinely required".
The change in the symbol for a priority written question from W to P had some effect on reducing the number of questions that are tabled for priority answer through inadvertence, but the Committee feels that further measures ought to be adopted. It proposes that questions marked P should be treated as priority written questions only if they carry a specific valid date for answer, as opposed to some vague wording such as "earliest date" or "as soon as possible".
The Government accept that recommendation and have accordingly brought forward a Standing Order amendment —the next motion on the Order Paper—to change the name of priority written questions to
questions for written answer on a named day".
The third point requiring the endorsement of the House is the Committee's recommendation relating to campaigns. There have been occasions when individuals or organisations outside the House have sought to secure the tabling of large numbers of disorderly or badly drafted questions, many of which repeat attempts previously disallowed. The Committee's report describes one such episode in a particularly effective paragraph.
In 1971, Mr. Speaker Lloyd dealt with that problem by authorising the Table Office to refuse to accept any further questions that were recognisable as emanating from a particular individual. The Committee believes that, where the facts of the case justify it, the Speaker should be able to take similar action in the future. By approving the motion, the House will be offering Madam Speaker its support in taking any such steps if she thinks it appropriate to do so. In my judgment, to curb abuse in that way is to uphold the rights of right hon. and hon. Members rather than to diminish them.
I will refer briefly to three other matters. A number of the Committee's recommendations, such as those relating to blocks, are designed to allow questions to be tabled that at present must be refused by the Table Office. I must make it clear to the House that accepting that recommendation does not mean that Ministers will feel obliged to answer


them. The Government have, for example, no intention of relaxing the rules relating to the confidentiality of collective decision-making.

Mr. David Winnick: As to the blocking system, does the Leader of the House agree that it is for Ministers to decide whether or not to answer particular questions? We should attempt to lessen the policing role performed by the Table Office. It exists to help right hon. and hon. Members and does so, but it should avoid being seen—albeit wrongly—as the custodian or guardian of Ministers. If a Minister does not want to answer a question repeatedly asked by a right hon. or hon. Member, that should be left entirely up to the Minister concerned.

Mr. Newton: I acknowledge that, at the end of i.he day, it must be for individual Ministers to decide the answers they give, and whether they give a substantive answer at all. The Government's position on the report and the remarks that have just made are much in line with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's point.
The quaintly termed "Mayor of Sligo" rule has until now prevented one hon. Member from tabling questions about a Minister's communications with another hon. Member. Following the Committee's recommendations, the Government agree that, when a Minister answers a question to the effect that he or she will write to the hon. Member concerned, the reply will also state that a copy of the reply will be placed in the Library and so made available to other Members of Parliament, unless overriding reasons of confidentiality—such as might arise in a personal social security case—make that action inappropriate.
The Committee concluded with observations about answers "pursuant" to previous answers—which, BS I well know, have occasionally caused some disturbance in the House and to the Chair. The Government welcome the Committee's recognition that there can be a place for "pursuant" answers where that is the best way to give information to the House quickly, and we accept the Committee's view that a pursuant answer that does not relate to the original answer must be out of order.
The Committee has brought forward a useful and practical series of recommendations. I thank again my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton arid his Committee—a number of whose members are present in the Chamber--for their work. I am sorry that it has taken a fair time to get around to presenting this motion, but I hope that its arrival gives satisfaction to my right hon. Friend, and that the House will be content to approve this and the ensuing motion.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I join the Leader of the House in thanking the Committee for its work and its report, and the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for his chairmanship and for publishing the Committee's thorough and detailed review in the form of the document before the House.
The Leader of the House is exhibiting uncharacteristic signs of self-pity today. Yesterday's events must have had a deeper and more scarring effect on him than I tthought possible in someone whom I had always deemed robust.

Mr. Newton: rose—

Mr. Brown: I was just about to say something nice about the right hon. Gentleman, but I willingly give way to him.

Mr. Newton: The last thing I want to do is stop the hon. Gentleman saying something nice about me. I cavil slightly at his use of the word "self-pity". I merely thought that the House did not do itself much good last night.

Mr. Brown: The Leader of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise."[It is a little early in my speech to apologise. All I have done so far is thank the Committee for its work, make special mention of its Chairman and try to say something nice about the Leader of the House. Despite that, I hear cries of "apologise" from the Government Benches. I know that the Conservative party is going through difficult times at the moment, but apologies would be excessive.
I thank the Leader of the House for finding time for a debate on an important report and on the Government's response to it. As its members will know, the Procedure Committee published further reports—on the unified Budget, on private Members' Bills and on the timing of Divisions. The House will want to debate those reports in due course.
I make a plea to the Leader of the House for an opportunity to debate the reports and the Government's response to them. It would be helpful if we had an opportunity to debate in particular the second report on the unified Budget at an early stage after the Queen's Speech —and before 30 November.
The Procedure Committee's second report covered two key matters. The Opposition believe that the Government behaved irresponsibly by including legislation on those matters in the Finance (No. 2) Act 1993 before the report had been published, much less considered by the House. If the reports are to have any value, they should form the basis of an informed debate and then of decision-making. The House should not be presented with decision-making first and an examination of the matter afterwards.
Happily, the Procedure Committee's first report is not blighted in such a way. The Committee was right to re-examine matters which may not have seemed controversial—indeed, to which it decided to recommend no change—as well as one or two more contentious issues. Parliamentary questions are an important part of our system of parliamentary democracy. The continued effective functioning of those matters requires periodic review and constant vigilance.
Without re-examining every issue considered by the Committee, I should like to raise a number of issues that arise from its work and from the motions.
First, I hope that the timing of the shuffle for oral questions will be kept under review, and that the argument for deferment, until at least 6 pm, will remain under consideration as an alternative. It is far harder for hon. Members whose constituencies lie outside the home counties to deal with local pressures on their time and remain in the House on Fridays and Mondays.
Although the Committee has not recommended any change, I gleaned from its report that it understands the issue and that it is willing to keep it under review. It referred to the difficulty experienced by Welsh Members, with Welsh questions being tabled on Mondays.
On open questions to Departments, the report's suggestion that the request for the date of a Minister's next


meeting with a person or organisation should be accompanied by an indication of the potential subject of discussion seems fair. That recommendation strikes an appropriate balance and, to a great extent, deals with the argument for reducing the maximum number of tabling days for oral questions from 10 to five sitting days.
The best way to proceed would be to give that suggestion a chance to work. I support the Committee's recommendation. It has got the balance right in a well-considered way. I share the Government's reservations about immediately taking the more radical step of reducing the number of tabling days from 10 to five, because of the attendant difficulties with that proposal.
The Committee rightly rejects the introduction of rationing or quotas for written questions, and it sensibly points out that the indiscriminate use of priority written questions often leads to many holding replies.
The House should ensure that adequate copies of a booklet setting out the "dos" and "don'ts" of hon. Members' responsibilities for research assistants are available, giving formal guidelines rather than only a general call for good conduct. I took particular note of the Government's endorsement of the Committee's comments on research assistants, especially in the context of campaigning, although I notice that the Government made no mention of civil servants in the same context.
We must be careful about this matter. I understand and fully share the Committee's desire to prevent abuses, but such matters should be judged against objective criteria. In any event, if the Government answered parliamentary questions fully, frankly and truthfully in the first place, aggrieved Members would not feel the same need to campaign.
The section of the report on the questioning of ministerial statements made outside Parliament is clearly right. I strongly support the Committee's findings, because hon. Members should object to significant ministerial statements, especially those giving new information, being made outside the House. If Ministers have something new to say, this is the place to say it. As they do not always do that, it is right that we should be able to question them.
The Committee singled out chief executives of the next steps agencies for special mention. I strongly support its recommendation that Members of Parliament be given the benefit of the doubt, no matter how small it may be, when tabling questions to Ministers about the work of the agencies.
Substantial structural changes have been made in the last decade as a result of Government policy. Parliament should still be able to explore the functioning of those agencies, for which, perhaps, it has indirect responsibility. In addition, the Table Office should give Members the benefit of the doubt in such matters, and the Procedure Committee should stand up for the rights of Members.
My final point is on the use of written statements pursuant to earlier answers—a ministerial scam for making announcements as discreetly as it is possible to do in Parliament. Madam Speaker haso rightly deprecated this practice. I deprecate the practice, as does the Committee.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend recall that Madam Speaker made her remarks because of the way in which the Secretary of State for Health announced a prescription increase in response to a question that had nothing

whatever to do with prescription charges? Was not that an unfortunate, and some would say disgraceful, abuse that should not happen again?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has picked the worst and most slippery example, but similar examples have emanated from the Ministry of Defence. Procurement announcements inconvenient to the Ministry—I can certainly think of one that was close to my heart—slip out in such a way. It is not right that they should do so. If Ministers have anything to say, no matter how difficult it is, they should say it to the House and not try to evade questioning by other Members of Parliament.
The report is a thorough study of the issues. It is welcome, and in welcoming it I do not lose sight of the fact that the Leader of the House has allowed us to debate it. He has clearly taken note of the Committee's deliberations, to which the Government have responded fairly. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate the Committee's next two reports, especially the more controversial one on the unified Budget process.

Sir Peter Emery: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) for the kind things that they said about me, although any thanks should be directed to the whole Committee which did most of the work and did it extremely well. I am most grateful to all the members of the Committee for their attendance to discuss what were not always scintillating, newsworthy or publicity-gathering issues. However, all members did their work thoroughly and I wish to ensure that they are also thanked.
After such a nice start to the debate, it may seem slightly unfair to be rather scathing about the Government. My right hon. Friend referred to the Government's reply to our report. Cmnd. 687 appeared in June this year, but the reply refers to Cmnd. 178 which dates back not to June this year, last year or even the year before, but to May 1991. Perhaps I might echo the advice given by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and suggest that we debate the reports rather more quickly than has been the case.
The 1991 report was the first wide-ranging investigation of rules governing parliamentary questions since 1972. It was clearly right, after 20 years, to deal with the issue. It would be fair to say that the Committee considered not only the mechanics of parliamentary questions but the rules restricting what can be asked.
The recommendations are not revolutionary, but they are designed to make the machinery work slightly more smoothly, to modernise some of the rules and make them more beneficial to Members in pursuing their own work. They remove a number of minor irritants and make a worthwhile contribution to the continuation of the effective scrutiny of Government policy and actions, a role which I hope the Procedure Committee will always play, although it is not always popular with Governments.

Sir Michael Marshall: I rise with diffidence as I am a new member of the Procedure Committee. However, I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and the House that I find the report wholly worthy of support even though I was not one of its authors. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report also encourages one to consider further matters that,


inevitably, it cannot fully cover itself? I refer especially to questions on statements. I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that some hon. Members are worried about the lack of documentation available when questions are asked on oral statements. That is but one example of what the Committee should investigate in the future—I put in my bid.

Sir Peter Emery: I thank my hon. Friend. I agree entirely and welcome him to the Committee. He has considerable experience of the House and, as the president of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, he has seen the workings of many other Parliaments. He is therefore an excellent addition to the Committee. The Procedure Committee is turning its attention to the distribution of documents. The issue is not covered directly in the report, but I do not think that I shall be out of order if I say that it is something to which we shall be putting our minds in the immediate future.
The report deals with the machinery of parliamentary questions and the timing of the shuffle—we shall certainly bear in mind the suggestion about Mondays. It also covers the period of notice for oral questions. I am sorry that the Government could not go along with our suggestion immediately. I believe that it is the civil servants rather than Ministers who are the greatest objectors to moving in that direction. We were trying to make parliamentary questions more topical. If they were tabled only one week in advance rather than two, they would have greater topicality. The Leader of the House has dealt with the rationing of oral questions and the matter of open questions, but there is one matter that has not been mentioned.
The report refers in passing to bogus points of order. I hope that the House welcomes the strength with which Madam Speaker has dealt with them recently. Hon. Members who pursue bogus points of order take up the time and take away the rights of those hon. Members who wish to proceed with proper business.
We recommended that it should be permitted for discussions between Departments to be commented on, but it was not our intention to do away with absolute confidentiality. No Government—not even a Liberal Government—would want to discard Cabinet and ministerial confidentiality; it would be impossible to do so.
The report also tried to cover statements made outside Parliament, the internal affairs of other countries, suggested amendments to Bills, campaigns, Government achievements, the nationalised industries and executive agencies. Where necessary, we tried to bring the rules covering such issues up to date.
I am glad that the Government have seen fit to accept our second report. In my cynicism, I must point out that the Committee produced it within eight weeks of receiving the Government's comments, which had taken 25 months. We hope that we can offer the same service to the Government in the future.
Implementation of one of the Committee's recommendations would require certain changes to Standing Order No. 18. The Government were not only willing to accept that, but, in the hope that the House would approve it, they have specifically recommended those changes.
Finally, it was interesting to me and, I think, to the Committee that, when we invited hon. Members to submit evidence to us, there was a very poor response. Clearly, there was no widespread dissatisfaction in the House.
Our recommendations should not lead to an increase in the volume of parliamentary questions. The House gets through very many questions—I do not query whether they are justified—and we should not want to increase that number. We stress that answers must remain entirely the responsibility of Ministers.
May I detain the House one moment more and respond to a point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East? The Government have now received our report on the unified Budget. We make some simple but positive recommendations. We recommend that the motion dealing with finances and borrowing should be clearly understood. That is essential in a modern Parliament. Our aim was to improve some of the rather archaic procedures involved in Budget resolutions, which I do not believe that one in 10 hon. Members or one in 1,000 people outside the House understand. The motion should be understood not only in the House but outside.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to deal with this issue before the Budget. I do not want us to drift into a discussion of the unified Budget in the same way as we dealt with the old Budget in April. If that is the case, we are likely to be back under the old structure without any new or modern thinking.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing the Chairman of the Procedure Committee to be so out of order by referring to a subject which is not part of this debate. I have made my point. I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for this debate and for his co-operation with the Committee when we deal with matters in general.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) because that enables me, first, to pay my tribute to the way in which he leads our Committee and, secondly, to add to what he has just said.
It is rather extraordinary that the Select Committee on Procedure, which has a special role in reporting back to the whole House and a special responsibility to look after the interests of Back Benchers and minority parties, has no say in the priority given to the consideration of its reports. Therefore, I wholly endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Honiton about the urgent need for the whole House to consider our report on the unified Budget.
There are only eight sitting days left before the Budget is presented to us. It would surely be absurd if we were not to take advantage of the careful advice of the Select Committee on Procedure on the unified Budget.
Although I realise that I must not stray too far, with regard to the priority attached to the report that we are debating tonight, I endorse the point made by the right hon. Member for Honiton about the Government's long digestive process before allowing us the opportunity to debate Committee recommendations in the House.
Although the matter does not lie entirely in the hands of the Leader of the House, I hope that his digestion is working rather more speedily with regard to the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House chaired by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). That report is also extremely important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to intervene, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that he is well out of order. He should return to the motion before the


House. I have been tolerant because my voice is not as good as it was yesterday. It would be helpful to the Chair if the hon. Gentleman would return to the motion before us.

Mr. Tyler: I am trying to relate the priority that we attach to this report to previous reports.
Although I cannot speak for all members of the Procedure Committee, I think that it would be fair to say that we all recognise that we will return to the matter of parliamentary questions time and again. As the right hon. Member for Honiton said, questions have been discussed in the Procedure Committee and in the House on previous occasions. There must be constant vigilance and the situation is evolutionary. Within the time frame of the discussion of this report, there have been changes.
As an example of a topical point, I asked the Leader of the House a question about parliamentary questions:
who is responsible for deciding the maximum permissible cost of answering a written parliamentary question; if that cost is different for different Departments; and how often that amount is reviewed.
Very courteously, as always, the Leader of the House replied:
If an answer to any written question is likely to cost more than £450—the current cost threshold, calculated by the Treasury—the answering Minister will decide whether to refuse to answer on the ground of disproportionate cost, or whether to answer it whole or in part regardless of cost. This threshold, which applies to all Departments, is reviewed annually."—[Official Report, 25 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 425.]
Although the Procedure Committee's report does not refer to that specific issue, it is an example of the kind of subject that we must return to regularly in this House. It is curious that the Government are judge, jury and plaintiff when deciding how to apply those criteria. We do not know how they are applied, although the Leader of the House was kind enough to give me some idea in his reply. Perhaps the House should have a say in that and it may be a subject to which the Procedure Committee will have to return.
The purpose of questions can be very wide. They may genuinely seek information, just as an answer might involve carefully avoiding the provision of information. As we are all aware from the bear pit section of the daily order of business, questions can involve sparring and striking sparks. However, questions are clearly an important function in the relationship between the Back Bencher and the Executive.
Therefore, the right hon. Member for Honiton rightly emphasised the importance that we attach to continually monitoring what is happening to questions, be they oral or written, to ensure that they at least try to serve that function, however much some parties, individuals or parts of this House may try to hijack that process.
The report makes some modest tidying-up improvements. However, one or two changes are significant in that they try to prevent the Government from sliding out from providing full information to hon. Members. In its own small way, the Mayor of Sligo rule is important. In the past, that was used as a way of not providing full information to hon. Members. In responding to that point, the Leader of the House has done us all a service. The response to replies pursuant to previous answers is also a step forward.
However, I share the disappointment of the right hon. Member for Honiton about notice. I believe that the House operates at its best when it is topical and relevant. The Select Committee considered that point very closely and,

in his evidence to us, the Leader of the House indicated that answers are very often available within the period in question. He did not want to be tied to a specific time as he felt that that would be too constraining on Ministers. We have all suffered from holding answers at some time. I should be prepared to accept more tentative, holding answers if we could have more topical replies to more topical questions.
To return to my first point, the Procedure Committee has a special relationship with the House. It seeks to serve the whole House and particularly Back Benchers. In future, I hope that the priority given to the consideration of our reports will be related more to the urgency that we on the Back Benches attach to a subject and not to the slow digestive process of the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I apologise to the House for not being present for the speeches by the two Front-Bench spokesmen. I had intended to be present, because I have examined this report and the 1991 report carefully. To make amends for my sins of omission and for my absence, I will be very brief.
My first point relates to open questions to the Prime Minister. Two letters were submitted to the Procedure Committee and are contained in the 1991 report. The first was from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He suggested that the Prime Minister should face closed questions and not open questions. He thought that open questions allowed the Prime Minister off the hook as they did not concentrate on a particular item. I concede that there may be a problem of relevance, particularly with questions being set two weeks in advance of Question Time.
The second letter was from my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). He suggested that the procedures with open questions to the Prime Minister should be dispensed with. Instead of asking about the Prime Minister's activities on a specific day and being provided with the details, questions should be such that they should be responded to immediately. As soon as an hon. Member's question was called, he should ask his question and he would not have to jump up and down twice as is usually the case.
Perhaps an experiment could be undertaken to combine those two notions. There are Prime Minister's questions on Tuesdays and Thursdays. On one of those occasions, Question Time could be given over specifically to closed questions. We could then discover whether the ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow were relevant.
Constituents have asked me why, when the Prime Minister is answering questions, another topic is suddenly raised. It seems that the Opposition have the Prime Minister cornered on an item and then the next Opposition Member raises a question an entirely different topic. People want to know why we do not pursue a particular issue.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is one of the most active people in the House at Question Time and on other occasions. Does he recognise that those of us who remember the closed question now accept without reservation that the open question is a wonderful opportunity, not only for the Opposition, but Government


supporters as well, whereas, because of the changing political scene, a closed question might have little relevance in 10 or even five days' time?
The open question provides Back Benchers in particular with the opportunity to ask questions about a situation that may have arisen on the day itself. To take away what we have gained would be a grave disservice to Back Benchers, but of some use to the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that. Although that suggestion was made with the best of motives, I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the result would be against the inl:erests of all hon. Members.

Mr. Barnes: I take my hon. Friend's point, which is why I was suggesting an experiment. Some of us who are more recent Members might then be able to observe the difference between an open question session and a closed question session. However, the suggestion that we should dispense with some of the ritual could be readily pursued.
My second point relates to hon. Members being unable to table written questions unless the House is in session. It would not be a great problem if we had a sensible parliamentary year with the weeks spread out carefully, but we have a considerable summer recess. Given that Parliament will be prorogued tomorrow, over a 17-week period we shall have been absent for 14 weeks. During those 14 weeks, there is no chance to table written questions and get answers. The alternative is to write letters to the Departments, but that process is not open to public scrutiny and is not likely to be pursued as rigorously by the Departments as questions would be.
Ideally, I would like to change the parliamentary year to overcome the problem, but if the problem is to remain, thought needs to be given at some stage to whether it is possible to put down early-day motions, written questions and various other matters of a written nature in front of the House to get appropriate answers and have them published in Hansard.
Thirdly, one of the best question times that takes place in the House—it is the most rigorous and fruitful—does not happen in the great glare of publicity, but in Standing Committees A and B, which deal with European legislation. It is possible to have an hour of questions to the Minister on a limited item that is in front of the Committee and later to have up to an hour and a half of debate in connection with it. We need to take on board the lessons that come out of those Committees' activities. I realise that there is a distinction. The question session is similar to a statement being introduced on the Floor of the House, which we can all question; but we cannot follow on from a statement, and a statement is likely to cover a much wider area than the matters that are involved in Standing Committees A and B. There is a difficulty with having something as narrow as that in the House.
I am impressed by question time in Committee, but it means that the Minister has to be well briefed and know carefully the item with which he is dealing. I have always found those question sessions educational and useful during subsequent debates. I might sometimes turn up having not fully digested all the relevant papers that are put in front of us and discover during question time that there are useful ideas that can be picked up from those papers, dealt with or pursued.
That seems to be parliamentary procedure at its most useful, although it is not the most significant issue with which the House deals, because problems such as scrutiny should be pursued.

Mr. Newton: Rather than detain the House, I need say only three things briefly. First, several of the points made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) are further bright ideas for my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) to consider in his Committee. I would not wish that to be taken as an endorsement of them, but nor would it be right for me to seek to inhibit the Committee in considering them.
Secondly, I thought that the interesting exchange between the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) about open and closed questions answered what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) was saying about the timing rules for the tabling of oral questions. I did not understand his reference to being happy to have a holding answer, because that does not arise with oral questions —certainly not oral questions that are reached. The real point is that the topical questions in which people are interested do not relate to something that happened five days ago as opposed to 10 days ago, which was the point that the hon. Member for Walsall, North was making. They relate to what was on the "Today" programme that morning or in that morning's newspapers or on the lunchtime news.
As I well know from my occasional duties in deputising for the Prime Minister on Tuesdays and Thursdays, it is essential to keep up with news that comes in throughout the day and not news that was established five or 10 days ago. I will not go further into that except to say that the argument about whether it is five days or 10 does not meet the point about topicality. I do not think that it would make much difference one way or the other.
You may not understand my next comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you were not in the Chair at the time—at least not when the hon. Member for Cornwall, North was pulled up for being out of order. It is clear from the way in which they have strayed into discussing a report that is not on the Table that some members of the Procedure Committee feel some degree of exemption from the rules of order. I admire their skill, but do not think that it would be right for the Leader of the House to follow their example.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure on Parliamentary Questions (House of Commons Paper No. 687).

NOTICES OF QUESTIONS

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments) be amended—
in line 11, by leaving out "written or priority" and inserting "or";
in line 12, at the end, by inserting "and a Member may indicate a date for answer of a question for written answer in accordance with paragraph (4) of this order"; and
in line 14, by leaving out "priority written answer" and inserting "written answer on a named day".—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Bill imediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

SCOTTISH LAND COURT BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

HEALTH SERVICE COMMISSIONERS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

PROBATION SERVICE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

PENSION SCHEMES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

PENSION SCHEMES (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

PENSION SCHEMES (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. John Fraser: Unlike the previous Bills, the one before us is not a consolidation measure, but a recommendation from the Law Commission which I welcome. I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the draftsmen and the Law Commission on the extent to which all the Bills, including the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill, simplify the law, and make it more accessible and easier to understand for non-lawyers as well as lawyers.
I do not wish to go into the detail of the Bill—I think that part X of the first schedule deals with the re-edification of cities in the reign of Henry VIII, so no doubt there were inner-city problems even then. I congratulate the Government on bringing the measures from the Law Commission to the House rapidly—always with the Opposition's co-operation. However, I regret that other Law Commission recommendations involving law reform —which is not consolidation or statute law repeal—are not so readily introduced. Those measures would often command the support of almost every part of the House, yet necessary measures of law reform are often neglected. I only wish that the Attorney-General and the Government showed as much enthusiasm for the other Law Commission reports as they do for the measure before us, which I welcome.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I shall not detain the House long, but I believe that the legislation should not pass without comment. The last time that I prepared myself to speak on a report and legislation proposed by the Law Commission was immediately prior to a debate in the House on the secretarial office allowance about a year and a half ago. As a new Member, I hesitated to delay the business of the House as the Benches were packed and hon. Members were anxious to begin that debate.
I hesitate to rise now, bearing in mind that the next business relates to something which preoccupies many of my hon. Friends. Nevertheless, while congratulating the Law Commission on its work and on the entertaining and well-documented report which accompanies the Bill, the House is failing in its duty to scrutinise a detailed piece of legislation if the Bill is allowed through on the nod. That is not proper law-making.
I will demonstrate by pointing out that clause 2 of the Bill remedies an error which the Law Commission admits to in a previous repealing Bill. That demonstrates that the work of the Law Commission is not an exact science, and that the House is not doing its job properly in terms of scrutinising such legislation. It would be much better if such repeal legislation came in salami slices, rather than in one heavy document which we are expected to approve on the nod.
Clause 2 recognises that, in an earlier Bill, an Act of the time of King George III was repealed. The Law Commission subsequently admits that it discovered that the Act should not have been repealed at all and, at a stroke, they now wish to reinstate it in the statute book. That does not seem to be appropriate use of the Law Commission's power. This part of the measure is not one of repeal but rather one of reinstatement. If the job of the

Law Commission is the removal of clutter and the need to modernise the statute book, how can it be right to restore to the statute book an Act of Parliament passed at the time of George III?
I commend hon. Members who wish to pursue the matter further to the document prepared by the Law Commission on this issue. The report states:
In 1978, when the repeal of the Enfield Chase Act was recommended, the trustees were not consulted because the Law Commission was not aware of their existence or of their reliance on section 60 of the Act. Consequently the difficult issues that are involved were not canvassed then. For this reason we are recommending, at the request of the trustees, that the position that obtained before the 1978 repeal should be restored by deeming the Enfield Chase Act not to have been repealed.
That is the restitution of the George III Act. I think that that demonstrates that the job was not done properly by the House in absorbing many repeals in a large Act of Parliament. I hasten to suggest that this time there will be other serious errors because of the sheer volume, and because this Bill is being discussed on the last day of the Session and before another measure that will obviously exercise a number of hon. Members because of its importance to Opposition parties and to the democratic system. I hope that the Law Commission bears that in mind.
I am concerned that a substantial section of the Bill relates to repealing Acts of Parliament which appear to relate exclusively to areas that are now in the Republic of Ireland. The measures are detailed in group 2, part XVI of the Bill and include such measures as the River Suck Drainage (Provision of Funds) Act and important measures that relate to the Dublin corporation. While I appreciate that the measures are no longer of importance to hon. Members, it is not clear that the Government of the Irish Republic—the Dail Eireann and Senate—has been consulted about the repeal of these measures. I think that they should have been consulted. [Interruption.]
The matter may be of some levity to some hon. Members but it is a matter of consistency. When we repeal measures that relate to other jurisdictions, such as legislation relating to the Isle of Man, it is clearly indicated in the documentation that the Government of the Isle of Man and the Tynwald have been consulted and have given their approval. Is it not consistent therefore if we repeal legislation relating to other jurisdictions that the Parliament and or the Government of those places should first be consulted?

Mr. Roger Evans: The hon. Gentleman's point is a serious one, and is not light at all. As there can be no attempted exercise of jurisdiction over Southern Ireland, it does on the face of things sound peculiar to repeal the legislation.
Is it not probably the case that the Law Commission —taking a narrow and utilitarian view—is simply reducing the number of volumes to be printed when current statutes are printed? In other words, is it not purely an exercise in pruning?

Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point, and I am disappointed that such a distinguished lawyer does not know the exact title of the country to which he referred. It is no longer Southern Ireland, and has not been since at least 1948. It is in fact the Republic of Ireland.
I am not arguing against the fact that statutes should be reduced in terms of convenience and to diminish both costs


and waste; it is the principle that the Government of the Irish Republic should have been consulted if these measures still form part of its statutes. It is inappropriate that these measures should be repealed in this way without the proper consultation.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I am interested in the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. He will allow me to observe that only 30 per cent. of the statutes are available in their currently amended form. That is a matter of great concern to hon. Members who are anxious to ensure that statutes are available to the public so that they can be studied in their up-to-date form.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Page 201 of the Law Commission's report lists a number of Acts of the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland, but does not provide any cross-references with the schedule. We therefore have no way of knowing exactly which of the Republic of Ireland Acts referred to at page 201 of the report relate to the measures that are repealed in the schedule. That is both unfortunate and inappropriate, and I hope that that will be taken into account in any future repeal Bill documentation.
Given that part XVI of the schedule to which I referred earlier appears to relate exclusively to matters affecting the Republic of Ireland, I was surprised to find on the first page of the schedule reference to the repeal of the whole of the Constabulary (Ireland) Act 1866. I should have thought that it, too, would appear in part XVI. The Law Commission report tells us that the Constabulary (Ireland) Act has now been overtaken by Northern Ireland legislation and by the abandonment of the Royal Irish Constabulary in 1922. I understand that, but I seek an assurance that the Constabulary (Ireland) Act 1866 does not form part of the current statute book of the Republic of Ireland and if it does, the Government and Parliament of the Republic of Ireland were consulted about its repeal. We should be mindful of the fact that they inherited our statute book and that such consultation would therefore be appropriate.
I will not detail the House longer, but I give notice that if, in future, there is a stitch-up whereby important Law

Commission legislation is placed before the use before other matters that are also of great importance to the House, I shall not feel constrained from moving amendments that seek to delete certain provisions, because it seems to me that the House is failing in its basic and most important law-making function.

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has reminded us of the debt that we owe to the Law Commission and to the Scottish Law Commission for the work that they have carried out on all the Bills that we have considered this evening, especially this one. The report to which this Bill gives effect recommends the repeal of enactments that have been identified after detailed research and consultation as spent, obsolete, unnecessary or otherwise no longer of practical use.
It puts the work of these bodies in perspective when I tell the House that more than 2,600 such enactments, including 1,414 whole Acts, have been repealed as a result of 13 previous reports, and this Bill will add the repeal of 159 whole Acts and the removal of redundant provisions from 462 others.
I know that the hon. Member for Thurrock was not carping in any sense, and I associate myself too with the thanks expressed by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). If there is an occasional mistake, it serves merely to highlight the diligence with which the commissions have gone through their work. I shall draw to the attention of the commission, which will doubtless read our debates, the point about Irish legislation. The hon. Member for Thurrock can be confident that we are not affecting the affairs of the Republic in any way. Courtesy is courtesy; the hon. Gentleman's points will not go unnoticed.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Brown.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of this Resolution should have effect in relation to the giving of financial assistance to opposition parties in this House:

1.—(1) Financial assistance to assist an opposition party in carrying out its Parliamentary business shall be available under this paragraph at any time on or after 1st January 1993 if at that time one of the following conditions is satisfied with respect to the party, that is to say

(a) there are at that time at least two Members of this House who are members of the party and who were elected at the previous General Election after contesting it as candidates for the party; or
(b) there is at that time one such Member who was so elected and the aggregate of the votes cast in favour of all the party's candidates at that Election was at least 150,000.

(2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to any party in respect of the expenses incurred by it in any period shall be the aggregate of

(a) the first relevant amount for that period multiplied by the number of seats won by its candidates at that Election; and
(b) the second relevant amount for that period multiplied by one-two hundredth of the number of votes cast for its candidates at that Election (rounded down to the nearest whole number).

(3) For the period beginning with 1st January 1993 and ending with 31st March 1994

(a) the first relevant amount shall be £4,080; and
(b) the second relevant amount shall be £8.16.

(4) For the period of one year beginning with 1st April 1994

(a) the first relevant amount shall be the sum of £3,442.50 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period; and
(b) the second relevant amount shall be the sum of £6.89 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period;

but if either of the resulting amounts is not a whole number of pounds and pence it shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

(5) For any subsequent period of one year beginning with 1st April

(a) the first relevant amount shall be that amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period; and
(b) the second relevant amount shall be that amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period;

but if either of the resulting amounts is not a whole number of pounds and pence it shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

(6) The appropriate percentage for any period is the percentage by which the retail prices index for the month of March immediately preceding that period has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.

(7) The references in sub-paragraph (6) above to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this paragraph those references in that sub-paragraph shall be construed as references to any substituted index or index figure published by that Office.

(8) In consequence of this paragraph, the Resolution of 21st June 1988 shall not have effect with respect to any time after 31st December 1992.

2.—(1) Without prejudice to the' generality of paragraph 1 above, financial assistance towards travelling and associated expenses necessarily incurred by an opposition party's spokesmen in relation to the party's Parliamentary business shall be available under this paragraph at any time on or after 27th April 1992 if at that time one of the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 above is satisfied with respect to the party.

(2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to any party in respect of the expenses incurred in any period shall be such of the available amount for that period as may be allocated to the party in accordance with any apportionment under sub-paragraph (3) below.

(3) The available amount for any period shall be apportioned between each of the opposition parties in the same proportions as the maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given to each of them under paragraph 1 above for that period or for any period forming part of that period; and any such apportionment shall be made to the nearest pound.

(4) Any reference in this paragraph to the available amount for a period is a reference

(a) in the case of the period beginning with 27th April 1992 and ending with 31st March 1994, to £100,000;
(b) in the case of the period of one year beginning with 1st April 1994, to the sum of £100,000 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound; and
(c) in the case of each subsequent period of one year beginning with 1st April, to the available amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound.

(5) Sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) of paragraphs 1 above shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that paragraph.

3. Any claims for financial assistance under this Resolution are to be made to the Accounting Officer of the House; and a party claiming such assistance shall

(a) furnish that Officer with a statement of the facts on which the claim is based;
(b) certify to that Officer that the expenses in respect of which the assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to the party's Parliamentary business; and
(c) as soon as practicable after each 31st March following the passing of this Resolution, furnish that Officer with the certificate of an independent professional auditor to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party claimed financial assistance during the period ending with that day were incurred as mentioned in paragraph (b) above.

4.—(1) In the case of any year in which there is a General Election

(a) the period ending immediately before the date of the Election and
(b) the period beginning with that date,

shall be treated for the purposes of paragraphs 1(1) and (2), 2(1) to (3) and 3 above as separate periods.

(2) In relation to any such separate period

(a) the first relevant amount and the second relevant amount for that period shall be a proportionate part (rounded to the nearest penny) of the first relevant amount and the second relevant amount for the year in question; and
(b) the available amount for that period shall be a proportionate part (rounded to the nearest pound) of the available amount for the year in question.

(3) In relation to any such separate period ending immediately before the date of the Election, paragraph 3(c) above shall have effect as if the 31st March referred to were a reference to the day immediately before the date of the Election.

(4) In this paragraph "year" means a year beginning with 1st April.

5. The cost of providing financial assistance shall be borne on the House of Commons: Members' salaries etc. Vote.

Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I apologise to the House: it has been a long couple of days. Of course I meant, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was beginning to wonder as I listened for a while—before retreating—to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) whether the Labour Whips were as out of control tonight as they were last night. Fortunately, it seems that they are not.

As the House will know, the motion provides for the revision of the amounts of money paid in support of the Opposition parties—which is perhaps ironic, given the circumstances of the past two days. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Thurrock has the grace to smile at that. This money has come to be known as Short money after the Labour Leader of the House who first instituted the payments in 1975.

The purpose of these payments is to assist Opposition parties in carrying out their essential parliamentary duties at Westminster.

At the last review in 1988, the then Lord President, now Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords, carried out a thorough review of the workings of these funds and introduced new arrangements for accountability. My proposals are rather less sweeping. I seek not to review further the scope or purpose of the main Short money, but merely to update the sums paid. I think that the principle of these payments is both accepted and well established.

It has been customary to review Short money in the early part of each Parliament. The current formula was agreed in 1988 and provides that Opposition parties should receive £2,550 a year for each seat gained at a general election, and a further £5.10 for every 200 votes cast for the party. A party is, for this purpose, defined as having at least two Members of Parliament and having received at least 150,000 votes at the general election.

Mr. Simon Burns: I am somewhat confused about the votes criterion. The Liberal Democrat party may have had more than two hon. Members elected, but each of its candidates said something different to each elector in his constituency, so does the party qualify for the money, and if so, how should it be paid, given the disparity among its members?

Mr. Newton: A good question.
The proposals have three elements, which are a good deal simpler in principle than the lengthy motion would imply. They are, first, that the two elements of the formula should be uplifted by 35 per cent. to allow for inflation since the last settlement in 1988. Secondly, from 1994 onwards, Short payments should be inceased every April by reference to the retail prices index. Thirdly—an entirely new element—a fund of £100,000 should be established for Opposition travel in connection with Front-Bench duties, to be distributed on the same basis as Short money and uprated in the same way.
On the main Short money, the Government propose an uplift of 35 per cent. to take account of inflation since the last settlement and to take effect from 1 April 1993. From 1 April 1994, therefore, taking account of the regular review proposals that I have introduced, the formula's two elements will be updated annually by reference to the retail prices index.
This reflects the view that I have held for some years —it was reflected also in my proposition to the House last night on Members' pay—that it is much more sensible to have a regular uprating mechanism for payments of this kind than to leave them for several years and then to have what looks like a large increase but actually is not so large, given what has happened in the intervening period. Whatever views people may have of these payments, I

hope that it will be generally agreed that it is sensible to have a regular mechanism to keep them reasonably up to date.
The new element is the establishment of a separate fund of £100,000 for Opposition travel, to be distributed pro rata to Short money among Opposition parties. As with the main Short money, the resulting figures are maximums for expenditure incurred. In the previous Parliament the Rowntree trust, believing—it has proved, rightly—that there was a gap in our provision in this area, undertook an experimental project, not using public money, in which limited grants were made in support of Opposition travel for legitimate parliamentary purposes. Approaches from the trust and discussions with Opposition leaders have convinced the Government that there is a genuine case for provision of this kind, recognising the growing need for more Opposition spokesmen to travel in the United Kingdom and Europe, and the needs of their spokesmen on foreign affairs, defence and overseas development to travel if they are to do the job that our system expects of them—regardless of whether we always like what they say.
The provision for annual uprating of the travel fund will be on the same basis as Short itself—by reference to the RPI in April of each year. Arrangements for claiming and accounting will be in line with those already in place for Short money. The amount available for overseas travel by Select Committees is much larger than this fund, running at about £600,000 a year.
Those are the bare bones of the proposals. I shall not attempt to run through all the details of the motion, except to point to one detail that I know has given rise to some confusion. In paragraph 1(3), the motion refers to a period of 15 months from 1 January 1993 to 31 March 1994 and to amounts in the formula that do not correspond to the percentages that I have quoted. The figures £4,030 and £8.16 comprise 12 months at the revised rate for each figure, plus three months at the old rate. The effect is to change the start of the accounting year from 1 January to 1 April and to provide amounts for the resulting 15 month period to correspond with the proposals.
The proposals come well over a year after the start of the Parliament and are the product of extensive discussions through the usual channels. I hope that they will be welcomed by representatives of those channels as giving them properly provided support in our system for the work of Opposition parties. I also hope that the mechanism that I have suggested to the House will mean that we will not need to return to the issue in the near future. I commend the motion to the House.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: In March 1974, the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson said:
No Government have anything to gain, and certainly the country has nothing to gain, from Opposition parties lacking the necessary facilities, financial and otherwise, for doing their job in the House."—[Official Report, 12 March 1974; Vol. 870 c. 72.]
As Prime Minister, he was proposing the funds that we are presently discussing.
The Rowntree Trust had made funds available then for a pilot project to help the Opposition with the costs of carrying out their parliamentary functions—an initiative which led to those whose posts were funded by that means to be known in Labour party circles as chocolate soldiers.


The spokesmen for the Opposition at that time, now Lord Prior, in response to the Prime Minister's statement, drew attention to the fact that
one of the benefits of the change in Government in recent years"—
a benefit that is rather overdue at present—
is that it has brought to the notice of Governments the very great difficulties from which Oppositions suffer, particularly Shadow Ministers."—[Official Report, 29 July 1974; Vol. 878, c. 33.]
From the onset of the scheme, some hon. Members have legitimately' objected. 'Some clearly confused it with the separate principle of state funding for political parties, as previous debates show. My party and I support such funding for exactly the reasons that led in the first place to Members of Parliament and their staff receiving a salary from the taxpayer. Without such funding, membership of the House would be restricted to those with private wealth or to those who have attracted financial support on a personal basis from others with wealth and power. I repeat, we are not discussing the principle of public funds for political duties—not state aid for political parties as discussed by the Houghton committee and the Society—but support for some of the parliamentary work of the Opposition.
The idea of providing such funding has been repeatedly endorsed by the Top Salaries Review Body in its examination of the financial support provided by Members of Parliament. As long ago as the 1987 Parliament, it expressed the view that it should be "regularly updated" and it pointed out that at that time the support declined in value in relation to individual allowances for all MPs.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that money for Opposition parties was not necessarily such a revolutionary step, bearing in mind that candidates are subsidised for general election campaigning and that many hon. Members who are opposed to state funding of Opposition parties, as they are opposed to state funding generally, do not, I notice, object when they are subsidised as candidates at a general election when they receive facilities for which they would otherwise have to pay? Is not there an apparent element of hypocrisy in standing up and denouncing the subject of this debate?

Mrs. Beckett: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that sometimes people fail to see such subjects in the round and where they are being inconsistent in their attitude to one thing rather than another. I take the point of my hon. Friend that one such inconsistency is the way in which all hon. Members benefit from such funding.
The Top Salaries Review Body suggested that there should be regular updating of the support and that it should be carried out on what it calls a realistic assessment of need. By drawing the analogy between the funding received by every Member of Parliament for their office costs and their staff and the way in which the TSRB support for the concept of separate Short money was expressed, it addressed another point that has been made in previous debates.
I refer especially to a notion that has found favour with Government Back Benchers occasionally in the past—that, as the office costs allowance has been increased for all Members, the need for separate funding for the parliamentary work of the Opposition has been eroded or removed. That view is clearly rejected by the TSRB, as it

has regularly been rejected when it has assessed the enormous extra work load that is carried by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and their staff.
The board specifically drew attention to the discrepancy between the treatment of Short money and that of funding the parliamentary work of Back Benchers; in doing so, it highlighted an important issue that still has validity, which the settlement, whatever its merits, fails to address. The settlement before the House derives its validity, as the Lord President correctly pointed out, from the fact that it recognises the movement of inflation over the past six years since the 1987 settlement. The settlement also addresses—for which we are grateful to the Lord President —the thorny issue of the future movement of inflation, by linking the settlement to the retail prices index.
As there is so little public knowledge and the correspondence that Front-Bench spokesmen receive from the public makes it plain how little knowledge exists outside this place—and, often, not very much within it —about the background against which the settlement has been awarded, it is right to place one or two facts on the record for the benefit not only of hon. Members but of students of our affairs.
As the Lord President said, the settlement in cash terms increases the figure awarded in 1987 by 35 per cent. Since 1987, the office costs allowance paid to all Members of Parliament has increased in cash terms by 87.5 per cent. Since 1987, the costs of the Prime Minister's office have just about doubled in cash terms. In that figure, the increase for other costs—presumably equipment, travel, employment costs and other overheads—has more than doubled. The increases in salaries was less, at a mere 87 per cent. —closely analogous with the figure for the office costs allowance.
The final and perhaps the most significant myth, which previous debates have shown is also cherished by Government Back Benchers, is that only the Opposition draw taxpayers' money to fund parliamentary advisers and staff and their work. The Government also employ political advisers—a move which I wholeheartedly endorse. It is right that political advice and political work should be carried out by political staff and not by the civil service. The Government say that they are not able to tell us the overall cost of employing some 40 members of staff in those capacities to supplement the work of civil service staff and advisers. However, we know that the bill for their salaries alone has also about doubled since 1987. In 1993, that bill will amount to £1.37 million, slightly more than this settlement provides for the entire costs of the Labour Opposition.
On the basis of the Prime Minister's office, where salaries represent less than a third of overall costs, it would appear that the proper support services provided for the Front Bench of the Conservative party cost the taxpayer between £4 million and £5 million, as opposed to the £1.33 million that the settlement provides for the Labour Front Bench.
Part of the unquantified costs of the Government will be the cost of travel and accommodation properly met for advisers accompanying their Ministers on Government business in the European Community and overseas. In the previous Parliament, as the Lord President identified, funding for one visit a year to the institutions of the Community was provided for the first time to every Back Bencher. The same provision was made available to the Opposition Front Bench, but no further such provision.
Also in the previous Parliament, as the right hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to acknowledge, the Rowntree Trust offered the Opposition a small travel fund to help defray such extra costs. The trust did so with the explicit recommendation that such a facility should be taken up by the Government as a proper charge on public funds. I pay tribute to the Lord President for his work in persuading his colleagues to accept that notion. The Rowntree Trust said in its letter to him that it was right for such funds to be provided so that Opposition Front Benchers
were not beholden in any respect because the costs were not borne by vested interests in the form of foreign governments and/or professional lobbyists.
It said that the matter was important, and I share that view.
The settlement enshrined in the order does not offer the Opposition any real opportunity, except in the area of travel costs, to expand and improve services to the official Opposition. We certainly cannot match the improvement in services to the governing party and to Back Benchers that have been supplied since 1987, but the settlement will at least allow us to maintain the service that we currently provide.
That is particularly important because, as the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen)—I still think of him as the hon. Member for Oswestry—a former Leader of the House, identified recently in an article in The Guardian, the role of the Executive has become more and more powerful. All hon. Members are having greater and greater difficulty in getting answers to parliamentary questions. Answers that we used to get from Ministers tend to come from agencies, and Ministers seem increasingly reluctant to answer even those questions that they accept as being valid to them. That places considerable difficulties in the path of all hon. Members, and especially those whose role it is to shadow and scrutinise the movement of Government policy.
I shall give my last couple of examples of what the standstill in our parliamentary funding means. I appreciate that we are at least able to stand still and not to go backwards. For the Leader of the Opposition, when he was shadow Chancellor, we were able to provide from public funds money to employ one adviser to shadow the Treasury and the Chancellor's political and other advisers. For the shadow Foreign Secretary, we were able to provide from public funds money to employ one adviser to shadow the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Foreign Secretary's political and other advisers. I could go through the Departments to show that the position is the same for all of them, but I shall not.
For Opposition Front Benchers who match—in my view they over-match—the parliamentary work of Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries in, say, the Department of Health, which alone employs 12 press officers, we are able to provide from public funds, nothing. For Opposition Front Benchers who match the work of Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries in all the other Departments of State, we are able to provide from public funds, nothing.
In all those Departments that my colleagues shadow, thousands of civil servants back up the work of their Ministers every day, and we parliamentarians with our very few staff match them every day. We appreciate the

work of the Lord President in presenting this settlement to the House, but I know which party in this place gives value for taxpayers' funds.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I appreciate that, on the 239th day of this Session, hon. Members will not wish me to speak for too long. I shall endeavour to puncture in the gentlest way the congratulatory bonhomie between Front Benchers on this subject. We are debating the use of public money, and we are entitled to examine a little more closely how it is used.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was concerned that the official Opposition, and I dare say the Liberal Democrats, were underfunded and were therefore not able to give as good a service as they would like to the constitution. The right hon. Lady did not need the assistance of Short money to prepare her speech. She had only to ask her PPS to go to the Library, or she could have gone herself, to pick up the document that I have here.
Opposition parties and all Back Benchers have the advantage of the Library and House of Commons research facilities. Hon. Members who are sufficiently interested to check tomorrow's Hansard will find that the right hon. Lady quoted almost verbatim great chunks from the House of Commons research document.

Mrs. Beckett: I used two quotes from Hansard which are contained in that document. If the hon. Gentleman has read that document, perhaps he will tell me where it contains the rest of the material that I used about funding that the Conservative party receives from the state. If he can show me that or any of the rest of the material that I used, I shall be grateful to him.

Mr. Garnier: I have no doubt that the right hon. Lady will be very grateful to the Government and to other Conservative Members over the years.
I should like to remind the House of the original purpose of the Short money. As the right hon. Lady has done us the courtesy of quoting from Hansard, as quoted in the Library research document, I need not refer to those passages again, save to say that it was Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, the former leader of the Labour party, who as Prime Minister set out in Hansard of 12 March 1974, vol. 870, column 47, as the right hon. Lady has just done, the purpose of Short money, although it was not called Short money at that time. The right hon. Lady also quoted from speeches by Edward Short, now Lord Glenamara, who also set out the purposes for which Short money was to be used.
There is a need for a properly funded Opposition set-up, and that is not in dispute between any of the parties. It is one thing to be in government, but it is another to make sure that the Government justify themselves, and if the Government are to be tested, the Opposition parties must be ready and armed in intellect, research documents and so on. [Interruption.] I note that Opposition Members are concerned about their ability to oppose the Government.
Although there is no dispute about the need for proper funding for parties, the public at large are entitled to know whether they are getting value for money. Large sums are involved. Reference to this excellent document prepared by the Library shows the amount to which the Opposition are entitled under the new uprating system. It may be of interest to many people outside to know that, in 1992, the


Labour party received just under £1 million in Short money. The amount was £946,250. I do not know how many hospitals could have been—

Ms Hilary Armstrong: How much did the Government receive from such money to do the same job that the Opposition did?

Mr. Garnier: The hon. Lady is confused, although I am not surprised. The Government do not get Short money.
The 15 months ending March 1994 will bring to the Labour party £1,577,000. For the year of 1994–95, it will get £1,331,000.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend realise that those sums are about what an average American Senator receives for his personal staff? Does he really think that it is wholly unreasonable that the party in opposition—whichever party—should have something a little in excess of that?

Mr. Garnier: I am sorry if I have confused my hon. Friend. What is at issue is not the principle that the Opposition should have some money to do the job required of a loyal Opposition, but whether the public are getting good value for the huge sums of money distributed to them. The sum of £1,577,000 over 15 months is a Pot of money in anyone's book, whether one is an American senator or a British Member of Parliament.

Dr. Liam Fox: I must have misheard my hon. Friend, but I thought from the figures that he gave that the Opposition parties were to get a rise of 50 per cent. over last year, which seems rather generous in view of the other settlements in the public sector. Perhaps he can correct me.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend may have misheard me. Let me repeat the figures so that he gets them on board. For the year 1992–93, the Labour party received £946,250 in Short money. Under the new proposals, over the 15 months ending March 1994, the figure will be £1,577,344 and, for 1994–95, it will be £1,331,173.
The Labour party is not alone in receiving Short money. The Liberal Democrats, who I am glad to see will be able to speak with one voice tonight as only one member of that party is here, received in 1992 just under £200,000—£199,420. In the 15-month period ending 1994, they will get £326,384 and then on an annualised basis for 1994–95, they will get £275,536.
I am as delighted as anyone that the Opposition parties should now have access to travel funds. However, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether that will enable the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) to charge to the public purse his Cobbett's rural rides, or whether that cost will be borne by him personally or by the funds of the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the one occasion on which I spoke to him? He was seeking a pair so that he could attend a court case in the Caribbean. Does he think that it is appropriate for him to preach about value for money when he is not a full-time Member of Parliament, given that he was pursuing another profession during the debates on the Maastricht Bill?

Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates the point that I am trying to make. Value for money is everything. The case that I was hoping to get to, but could not, was not in the Caribbean.
The new proposals under clause 4(b) make it clear that the accounts have to be properly audited by a professional auditor, as has always been the case. That is good, but to what extent must there be detail in the audited reports presented to Parliament and the regulatory parliamentary authorities? Would it be permissible for the Opposition simply to say, "Opposition work" or "Work of the Shadow Cabinet"?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Or "Work in the courts".

Mr. Garnier: Indeed, or in the courts. I believe that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen work in the courts. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is a regular attender at the courts as a barrister when he is not working terribly hard on behalf of the Labour party. Whether the hon. Member who represents the other bit of Brent goes to court, I have no idea, but I will leave him to deal with that himself.
I am concerned that, for example, on page 15 of the House of Commons Library brief, which is available free to all hon. Members without the use of Short money, reference is made to the money provided to the Labour party. The Shadow cabinet received 36.5 per cent. of the Short money going to the Labour party, the parliamentary Labour party staff 33.3 per cent., and the leader 21.2 per cent.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: How much do you earn in the courts?

Mr. Garnier: I do not know what Mr. Deputy Speaker earned in the courts last year.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to catch my eye, he may do so. Mr. Garnier.

Mr. Garnier: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am deeply grateful to you.
May I perhaps also, when discussing value for money, ask whether the public realise exactly what the official Opposition do when they seek apparently to oppose Her Majesty's Government. Let us take the example of last night's activities and ask Members of the House whether they appreciate exactly what was going on and whether the public are getting good value for the taxpayers' money. I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that you will deprecate it as much as I do, that last night, during the course of the various debates—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we are principally dealing with a motion about updating of funds. While it is acceptable to make allusions to the scope and purpose, I do not think that we can really go into details of events that are in the past.

Mr. Garnier: I modestly claim to be a student of history and there is much to learn from the past when trying to sort out what is best for the future.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether you or the public are aware that the Short-funded Opposition parties, both Labour and Liberals, blocked the doors to the voting Lobby last night. Is that a new definition of the block vote?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must be aware that the Chair is well aware of what happened in all parts of the House, but those matters took place yesterday. We are not here to discuss them this evening.

Mr. Garnier: I am concerned that the public at large are not aware of the sums of money that are devoted to the Opposition parties and the way in which the Opposition abuse the money that they are getting by abusing the procedures of the House. If the public knew exactly what the Labour and Liberal parties did with the money and how they spent their time, they would wish us to take a much closer look at the way in which public moneys are spent on them.

Mr. Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend seemed to be saying a moment ago that the purpose of the Short money was thoughtful research by Opposition parties. Does he agree that not many members of the public would think that the sort of thoughtful research that they might be doing was into how to lock a lavatory from the outside so that the Serjeant at Arms could not get in?

Mr. Garnier: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have heard what the Deputy Speaker said about yesterday's events and I will not be drawn down that passage—if I might so call it—again. I would ask the House to bear in mind before they pass this resolution, with or without a vote, that the public are entitled—

Mrs. Beckett: I was hoping that before the hon. Gentleman left this most interesting discussion, he would deal with another important fact that perhaps he will not find in his free copy of the document from the Library, which is how we get value for money from the costs of the Prime Minister's office, which are now running at £10.7 million a year.

Mr. Garnier: As I recall, the right hon. Lady has had to stand in for the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on a number of occasions during Prime Minister's Question Time. She has never used that opportunity to ask that question. I should have thought that that question would have been better asked on such an occasion than of me this evening.
I know that a great many Members of the House wish to speak on this most important matter this evening and I will not detain the House for very much longer. Suffice it to say that the public are entitled to expect the Members of the House to consider rather more carefully the way in which money is provided by the taxpayers for the Opposition parties, and to ensure that the money is properly spent and accounted for in a public fashion. Then, at a general election, if the Opposition are right when they say that they give good value for money as an Opposition, the public will have the opportunity to keep them in opposition so that they continue to give good value for money.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I had seen the brief before, but, I had never heard the advocate. The brief might have been worth something, but I do not think that the person to whom it was given would get paid a lot for that performance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not even in the Caribbean."] Not anywhere. I do not know whether the electors of Harborough would think that it was great value for money either.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is not here. He is the relevant usual channel for the Liberal Democrats and the other minority parties. He would be here were it not for the fact that, after the most recent meeting of our parliamentary party, which was extremely abstemious and held in the precincts of this place, he was struck by something like food poisoning and has not been around, apart from voting yesterday. He sends his apologies and I trust that the Leader of the House and the deputy leader of the Labour party will understand.
We are debating these matters now because we did not index-link Short money in 1987. Had we index-linked Short money in the same way as we have now linked other payments concerning Members' pay, we should not have had to return to it today.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who intervened a few minutes ago, clearly was not present for the speech by the Leader of the House. We are discussing the first increase since 1987. It reflects the changes in the size of the Opposition parties. The amount that parties get reflects their size in the House. If the Labour party gets more this time, it is because it has a larger number of Members in the House. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) seems to have some obsession about Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not opened my mouth in the past five minutes. It was not me.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: It was me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) can put down his hand.

Mr. Hughes: I shall make no comment about what the hon. Gentleman was doing in the past five minutes, but it sounded as though he had said something.
It has also taken a long time for a settlement to be reached. That is regrettable: it has been a long parliamentary Session since last summer and it has taken until now to agree.
All those who understand democracy in Britain agree that there should be funding for the work of Opposition parties in this place. I should stress to the hon. Member for Harborough and his colleagues that the system was introduced by the Labour party when it was in government, and the Conservative party was the first to benefit from it as the then Opposition. It may not be long before Conservative Members are in need of it again, and they will be grateful that we have passed this motion tonight.
It is far better to have this system than what the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) rightly called the chocolate soldiers precedent. The Rowntree Trust helped us out, but that is not the proper way to fund a political system.
It is also a completely different issue from either the state funding of parties or of members. It is so that political parties in this place can have some collective specialist ability to do their job. It does not fund more than a single figure number of staff for my party. There are about seven or eight paid staff and some equipment to serve the whole panoply of Departments for those of us who have parliamentary spokesmanship jobs. I shadow seven or eight Ministers in this place. [Laughter.] That is true, as there are about 100 Ministers. Many of us fund research for


that from our own office costs allowance, topped up considerably from our salaries, in my case for every year in 10 years.
The right hon. Lady was right to say that the bill which the Government charge the taxpayer both in terms of the conventional running of the Prime Minister's office, the press officers—hundreds of them for all Departments—the civil service and now the political advisers runs into seven-figure sums. The total figure for the largest Opposition party, at something over £1 million, is a relatively modest contribution.
Let me remind the House and anybody who reads this hereafter that we are debating the measure on the basis of the Government getting millions and millions of pounds of public money when at the last election they got 41.9 per cent. of popular support, with the Labour party getting more than one third or 34 per cent. of the vote and getting only the Short money figure that the hon. Lady enumerated. My colleagues and I had 17.8 per cent. of the vote and will receive about £300,000 for the entire year. Five other parties, which have not yet been mentioned, also benefit from the order—the two nationalist and three Irish parties. They receive funding commensurate with their size and with the votes cast.
The last justification is that increasingly we have a more difficult job to do. European and domestic legislation is more technical. I accept that the Library service does an extremely good job, and I am on record as paying tribute to it. However, at short notice it often cannot respond to demands to provide information necessary to a political party.
I pay tribute to the Leader of the House, who has been helpful, courteous and efficient throughout. His has been a difficult job in defending the interests of the House when there has been such pressure on him from both the Treasury and his colleagues. It is a tight public expenditure round and the settlement is fair. We all owe much to the right hon. Gentleman—and I hope Conservative Members realise it —for providing a settlement which, from now on, will look after hon. Members in their official duties within their parties. It will do so in a fair and reasonable way and without the need to return to the House for a further order.
The postscript is that the travel fund is hardly an enormous sum, given the duty on political parties to keep up with the responsibilities of Government and Parliament.
The country expects us to be well informed and to do our job properly. The motion is reasonable and fair. It is also modest. It will ensure that we do our job better and serve the nation better in the days ahead.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I shall not detain the House for long, but there are a couple of points that I wish to raise. I do not want to go into the detail of whether any funding should be given to Opposition parties to pursue their duties. I accept that, to some extent, there may be some requirement for that. However, I do not always understand why. One element of the fund is for research and I accept that there may be some need to find out a little about what is going on—but to what extent? What is the research for? I shall return to that matter in a moment.
Another element of funding is for travel. I wonder what the Opposition parties do when they go to other countries. What do they talk about? There used to be a convention that, when overseas, Opposition Members did not talk

about how rotten the Government were. That convention has now been broken. Perhaps we should link to any funding a requirement that Opposition Members are a little more delicate in what they say about this great Government of ours. I think that that would be a fair requirement. I do not benefit too much from overseas travel at the moment, probably for reasons to do with the Maastricht debate. I suspect that I will not benefit for some time.
I want to comment on the transparency of the whole matter. I am concerned about what happens to some of the funding for research, which is a fairly loose word. I accept that if the funding is applied directly to research in matters to do with the House, it is reasonable to provide such funding. However, I am concerned that some of the money might find its way outside the House to party organisations.
My borough, Waltham Forest, is Labour-controlled, and I am greatly opposed to its policies. I should not want some of the funding to find its way to that council. At a recent council meeting, there was a clash about the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act—legislation recently passed by the House. In particular, there were statements of objection that turned into a downright refusal to implement legislation that is on the statute book. One councillor said about the requirement to check whether people are in this country illegally:
I'm not going to grass-up people for being illegal immigrants if they choose to live here.
It is quite clear from the Asylum Bill, which we passed and in which the Opposition were involved, that this is something they dare not do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I may be straying from the subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was giving the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt. He was going to relate this to Opposition research expenditure, but he has not so far managed to do so. I wait with anticipation.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I was going to say that there was a possibility that the outrage in Waltham Forest might have had, at some stage, links with research work carried out here for the Opposition parties to support their ability to say these things. I denounce outright any group that defies the laws on the statute book. I am sure that the Opposition parties will want to do the same.
We should know more about where the money goes. We have a clear insight of things like office costs, but we do not have it here to the same extent; I would like to know more about where the money goes across the board. Transparency is a good thing, and I am keen to see a requirement for a more detailed inventory.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition needs lectures from Tory Members of Parliament, about 200 of whom make money moonlighting in the law courts or as directors of as many as five, six or seven companies, and lining their pockets left, right and centre. Some 19 ex-Cabinet Ministers are now directors of 59 different companies. About six of those have moved into private companies, and many of them were Secretaries of State when the relevant legislation went through.
I want to deal with a philosophical argument about the money. It has nothing to do with the way in which the


money is spent by my right hon. and hon. Friends; it is about the direction in which it is spent. Some Tory Members of Parliament are trying to suggest that somehow or other we get money in the same way as them. We do not get money from Asil Nadir or Greek fascists—we do not get any of that kind of money. I find it hard to believe that the Tory party is £19 million in debt, although I keep reading about it. I reckon that it has some more money stashed away in Liechtenstein, probably from the same bloke.
When the Short money was introduced in 1978, the Tories were the first recipients. They did not argue the toss about it, but were happy to take the money and run. I know, because I was here; I watched them and listened to them. What worries me is that we have had the money since 1979 and never won an election.
I have always held the view that the money could have been directed in a different way, not that it has been ill spent. That view is contrary to the view of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I said at the time that the money should have gone to the Labour party. I would rather it went to Labour party headquarters to pay for research assistants at national level and the regional Labour party headquarters. In that way, the whole party would benefit.
When the money was introduced, the Liberal party switched funds and switched certain personnel from the Liberal party headquarters down to Parliament in order properly to qualify for the money. I am not saying that the Liberal party was doing anything wrong, but we certainly did not do it. I was a member of the Labour party executive at the time, and my argument has always been that, as the Liberal party had shifted its personnel from its headquarters to work in Parliament, there is a case for the money to be used at that level. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) knows about those discussions and is aware of the arguments that prevailed at that time.
We do not need Government lectures on spending because their own expenditure is enormous. No one can argue that is not the case. Some £10.7 million has been spent on the Prime Minister's office. When sunny Jim Callaghan left, the figure was £1.25 million. I know there has been some inflation, although according to the Tory Government there has been hardly any. Nevertheless, there is a big difference between £1.25 million at the time that Jim Callaghan left No. 10 and the £10 million being spent on the present Prime Minister.
The Government also spend more than £6 million a year on travel all over the world. There are more jaunts today by the Prime Minister and other Ministers—especially if they want to escape answering questions—than at any other time that I can recall. I am not arguing whether such expenditure is right in terms of the money being available —I just wish that money had been spent differently.
I do not imagine that the Short money will win us the next election. I am sure that we will win it anyway. I well understand why the Leader of the House is concerned about the money, because he knows that his party will be the recipient next time. He will probably be able to wear that top hat a lot more when we push through legislation.
I suspect that the special travel allowance is connected with the Common Market. Everyone knows my view that

the Common Market has been an unmitigated disaster. The Government allow Back Benchers to travel to Strasbourg or Brussels once a year, but I will not go there. You will not catch me knocking on Common Market doors. It worries me that there is some connection.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Yes, there is.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should know, because he is always on about proportional representation and the unfairness of the present voting system. Short money is PR in inverse proportion to the number of seats and votes won. There are about 20 Liberal Members of Parliament and every one of them is a parliamentary spokesperson.

Mr. Hughes: All except two.

Mr. Skinner: That means that 18 out of the 20 Liberal Members of Parliament will receive the travel allowance. Of the Labour party's 270 Members of Parliament, only 85 will receive the allowance—provided that it is not confined to members of the shadow Cabinet. Perhaps the Leader of the House will say who will qualify. I have already established that 18 Liberal Members of Parliament out of 20 will get the money.

Mr. Hughes: It is only £15,000 a year.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, but they will share that between them as well. The hon. Gentleman has seven jobs. How much Short money will he get?
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman also examines the car allowance. If the leader of the Liberal party has three free cars, the others should share the rest between them.

Mr. Roger Evans: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the principle was reasonably well established. That is typical of the insidious comfortable consensus that sometimes emerges from members of both Front Benches. This consensus is a particularly unpleasant 1970s consensus, from a dark age when fundamentals were not addressed. The Opposition parties are perfectly consistent and philosophical. They believe that public money can be spent on anything—that it does not belong to the taxpayer and is at the disposal of the state.
Political parties are voluntary organisations. To the Conservative, it is peculiar in principle that voluntary organisations should use the inquisition-type powers of the state to compel payments to them. It is fundamentally startling and wrong in principle.
Let us take the argument one stage further. Even if it is wrong in principle, what the motion proposes is bizarre.

Mr. Winnick: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves what he considers to be matters of principle, will he answer two questions? First, if it is wrong to subsidise, why does he accept a salary? After all, it could be argued that the taxpayer should not subsidise those who freely decide to take a chance on being elected to this place. Secondly, does not his constituency party receive a subsidy at a general election, to which, presumably, the hon. Gentleman does not object? That is taxpayers' money. Why does not he say that he is willing to pay and not the taxpayer?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's arguments are fundamentally bad in principle. We have never objected to


the payment of hon. Members. What is wrong is the payment of informal voluntary organisations by the use of bizarre subsidies.
It is a peculiar anomaly that a nationalised industry—the Post Office—allows candidates to have freepost during elections. All candidates take advantage of that service. It is an old anomaly and it cannot be defended.
Paragraph 1(1)(a) refers to at least two hon. Members of the party who were elected after contesting the previous election as candidates of that party. That led to bizarre consequences in 1981, when members of the Labour party defected to the SDP and a specific resolution had to be passed to deal with that contingency. A special resolution had to be passed for Liberal Democrat Members who had not fought the preceding election as members of that party.
The point of constitutional principle is that, traditionaly, the constitution recognsies individual hon. Members, not political parties. The provisions of the motion are direct shackles on the freedom of hon. Members to leave parties and to form new one. That is not constitutionally right.
The second aspect is even more bizarre: paragraph (b) of the resolution. Plaid Cymru, mercifully for it, has enough Members of Parliament to get over the hurdle in paragraph (a). But under paragraph B, the point of principle is even more bizarre. A party with one Member of Parliament must have had the aggregate of at least 150,000 votes cast in favour of all its candidates. Even if we do not take it as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) put it—about parties where all the candidates say different things—there is a problem in Wales; Plaid Cymru attracted abut 156,000 votes. It got over hurdle (a), so this does not arise, but if it had not. three of those candidates were joint Plaid Cymru-Green candidates. We want to know in Wales whether it is one party—Plaid Cymru—or two parties: Plaid Cymru and the Green party. In fact, 170,000 people voted green at the last election, but they did not elect a single Member of Parliament, so this does not arise.
These are arbitrary and indefensible distinction; that arise because a scheme has to be set up to allot public moneys. We all know that, when it comes to allotting public moneys, principle is soon lost and adverse and unsatisfactory compromises result.
The third feature that is so wrong is what the money is spent on. The Library brief, which has been referred to, shows that little information has been published. It gives us some helpful information that apparently was volunteered by the Liberal and Labour parties. Figures for the most recently available year show that 21.2 per cent. of Labour's expenditure from these moneys went on its leader. We do not know whether that was to provide the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) with a golden palanquin and liveried servants to get to his place in the House. The Labour party does not choose to publish details of such expenditure. If public moneys are to be expended, I would argue that there should be proper public accountability.

Ms Armstrong: The hon. gentleman's comments beggar belief. His party publishes nothing about its spending. We know nothing of how the Government are using the money that they receive for the Prime Minister's office or for political advisers to Cabinet members, but that money also comes from the public purse—and in much greater amounts than anything given to the Opposition.

Mr. Evans: They are payments for the Government and they are fundamentally different in character from payments for political parties. It is a completely different issue.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree with my previous point, that transparency is all and that the Opposition parties should not be scared of it? Transparency would enable us to ascertain whether they were receiving money from socialist councils such as mine in Waltham Forest, which I decry.

Mr. Evans: Transparency and accountability are fundamental in the expenditure of public as opposed to private moneys. The current method is startling.
I have two final objections to the motion. First, this is the wrong time, and we are all familiar with that argument. The second objection is constitutional. It was taken up by the former hon. Member for Tiverton when the issue was first debated. There is no enabling Act of Parliament or proper statute to authorise the payment of moneys under this motion. That has important constitutional consequences.
Resolutions must now, due to the passage of time, be in order, and no one is suggesting otherwise. However, because the payments are made by resolution, they are not justiciable in the courts just as, I imagine, on the same principle, the standard spending assessments and the revenue support grants under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 are not challengeable by way of judicial review. In other words, the House is acting unilaterally and without judicial check in the courts in order to defray public moneys when we do not know in detail what they are being spent on. That is a constitutional abomination, and I shall certainly oppose the motion.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: When I came to listen to the debate, I did not expect that I should be speaking in support of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and against some of my eccentric colleagues. In my estimation, the entertaining, witty and amusing speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) qualifies him for immediate promotion to the Whips Office.
In the late 1970s, we were the first recipients of this largesse, small as it was. We put it to extremely good use: in two years we had returned the Conservative party to power, where it has remained ever since. The fact that the Opposition have perhaps not put it to such good use does not invalidate the concept.
There is a serious issue of which every hon. Member should be aware. When I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I referred to the money that is available to legislators in the United States and many other countries. We must remember that we are not talking about the funding of political parties. If we were, I would disagree with the right hon. Member for Derby, South because I do not favour public funding of political parties. We seek to increase the level of information and intelligence in the Chamber and to


facilitate better debate. One might say that it has not always been terribly productive and that recent occurrences support that notion.
However, I believe that this is an extremely modest provision. It is sensible and fair to give to an Opposition party which has a very real national responsibility a relatively small sum of money to enable it to discharge its responsibility. After all, we are talking about Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. The quality of legislation in this place can be improved only if there is detailed scrutiny by people who know what they are talking about.
In recent years, Parliament has suffered because legislation has not been examined with sufficient scrutiny. There are many reasons for that. The fundamental reason is that in recent years, both Labour and Conservative Governments have broken their election pledges that they would introduce less legislation and not more.
I very much hope that, in two weeks' time, the Queen's Speech will include far less legislation and that we can really get on top of that legislation. No hon. Member, whether he or she be an Opposition Member or a Government Member, can honestly say that he or she honestly understands all the legislation that comes before this place. However, it is of fundamental national importance that the Opposition parties and particularly the official Opposition, should be able to do that.
I am not a critic of the civil service. I believe that this country is exceptionally well served by its civil servants. It is one of the great jewels of our system that we have a civil service that remains with the Government if the governing party changes. Our civil service is of great quality. However, when we consider the resources that the civil service provides for the Government and the meagre, modest resources which the motion provides for the Opposition, we cannot do anything other than support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House if we look at the matter fairly and objectively.
I would include just one amendment to the motion. I believe that the money should be a little more widely spread. I should like the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to be able to go abroad and to visit all the countries of the European Community. [Interruption.] The Opposition Chief Whip may want him to go permanently, but many hon. Members would not really want that to happen. We would love to see the new breadth, enlightenment and vision that would burgeon forth from Bolsover if the hon. Gentleman had a little Short money to take him round the world. I appeal to the Opposition to find some way to send one of the most endearing of all parliamentary characters on his travels.

Mr. Newton: I have followed the debate with considerable interest. However, it is difficult to find points to which I can add a great deal more than what I said earlier. Without upsetting the Opposition, I must tell my Conservative colleagues that I found entirely understandable their concern expressed in the wake of last night's events. On the other hand, it is right to balance those concerns with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), which were the points on which I tried to focus in my opening remarks.
I do not accept all the comparisons made by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). However, she knows from our discussions that I thought that she made several legitimate points, as did the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am grateful to learn that they think that this settlement, which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said is not overwhelmingly generous let alone profligate in comparison with the sums paid before taking account of inflation in the intervening period, is fair and reasonable and provides a base for a continued acceptance of a settlement along these lines.
I shall say very little more. I should reveal to the House that the only reason why I spoke at all was that there was some anxiety about whether the House was prepared for the next business—a task which I occasionally had to encourage others to do in my days as a Government Whip. But it enables me to put on record one point.
I realised during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) that I inadvertently misled the House in my opening speech by a slip of one word. I said, I think, that
a party is for this purpose defined as having at least two Members of Parliament and having received at least 150,000 votes at the last general election.
As those who study the motion will see, it should have been "or" rather than "and" in the middle of that sentence.
It has not been absolutely clear in the debate, but it should be placed on record as my last remark in the proceedings, that a proportion of the money goes not only to the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, but to the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Ulster Unionist party, the Ulster Democratic Unionist party and the Social and Democratic Labour party on the same formulation as is applied for the main Opposition party and the Liberal Democrats. That should be clear to everybody, and it interrelates with the point that I am making in correcting the inadvertent slip in my opening speech.
With those remarks, I commend the motion to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes
15.

Division No. 402]
[9.45 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Amess, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Armstrong, Hilary
Harvey, Nick


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Baldry, Tony
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Barnes, Harry
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Llwyd, Elfyn


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Lynne, Ms Liz


Boateng, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
McLeish, Henry


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Maclennan, Robert


Burns, Simon
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Malone, Gerald


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Michael, Alun


Chapman, Sydney
Morgan, Rhodri


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Page, Richard


Cormack, Patrick
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Prescott, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fraser, John
Rendel, David


Fyfe, Maria
Robertson, George (Hamilton)






Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wallace, James


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Waller, Gary


Short, Clare
Walley, Joan


Sims, Roger
Welsh, Andrew


Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Soames, Nicholas
Winnick, David


Spellar, John
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Worthington, Tony


Strang, Dr. Gavin



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Michael Brown and


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Derek Conway.


NOES


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Spink, Dr Robert


Bates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Elletson, Harold
Stern, Michael


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Thomason, Roy


Gallie, Phil
Trotter, Neville


Garnier, Edward



Heald, Oliver
Tellers for the Noes:


Kilfedder, Sir James
Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith and


Oppenheim, Phillip
Mr. Roger Evans.


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of this Resolution should have effect in relation to the giving of financial assistance to opposition parties in this House:

1.—(1) Financial assistance to assist an opposition party in carrying out its Parliamentary business shall be available under this paragraph at any time on or after 1st January 1993 if at that time one of the following conditions is satisfied with respect to the party, that is to say

(a) there are at that time at least two Members of this House who are members of the party and who were elected at the previous General Election after contesting it as candidates for the party; or
(b) there is at that time one such Member who was so elected and the aggregate of the votes cast in favour of all the party's candidates at that Election was at least 150,000.

(2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to any party in respect of the expenses incurred by it in any period shall be the aggregate of

(a) the first relevant amount for that period multiplied by the number of seats, won by its candidates at that Election; and
(b) the second relevant amount for that period multiplied by one-two hundredth of the number of votes cast for its candidates at that Election (rounded down to the nearest whole number).

(3) For the period beginning with 1st January 1993 and ending with 31st March 1994

(a) the first relevant amount shall be £4,080; and
(b) the second relevant amount shall be £8.16.

(4) For the period of one year beginning with 1st April 1994

(a) the first relevant amount shall be the sum of £3,442.50 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period; and
(b) the second relevant amount shall be the sum of £6.89 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period;

but if either of the resulting amounts is not a whole number of pounds and pence it shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

(5) For any subsequent period of one year beginning with 1st April

(a) the first relevant amount shall be that amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period; and
(b) the second relevant amount shall be that amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period;

but if either of the resulting amounts is not a whole number of pounds and pence it shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

(6) The appropriate percentage for any period is the percentage by which the retail prices index for the month of March immediately preceding that period has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.

(7) The references in sub-paragraph (6) above to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this paragraph those references in that sub-paragraph shall be construed as references to any substituted index or index figure published by that Office.

(8) In consequence of this paragraph, the Resolution of 21st June 1988 shall not have effect with respect to any time after 31st December 1992.

2.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 1 above, financial assistance towards travelling and associated expenses necessarily incurred by an opposition party's spokesmen in relation to the party's Parliamentary business shall be available under this paragraph at any time on or after 27th April 1992 if at that time one of the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 above is satisfied with respect to the party.

(2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to any party in respect of the expenses incurred in any period shall be such of the available amount for that period as may be allocated to the party in accordance with any apportionment under sub-paragraph (3) below.

(3) The available amount for any period shall be apportioned between each of the opposition parties in the same proportions as the maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given to each of them under paragraph 1 above for that period or for any period forming part of that period; and any such apportionment shall be made to the nearest pound.

(4) Any reference in this paragraph to the available amount for a period is a reference

(a) in the case of the period beginning with 27th April 1992 and ending with 31st March 1994, to £100,000;
(b) in the case of the period of one year beginning with 1st April 1994, to the sum of £100,000 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound; and
(c) in the case of each subsequent period of one year beginning with 1st April, to the available amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound.

(5) Sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) of paragraphs I above shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that paragraph.

3. Any claims for financial assistance under this Resolution are to be made to the Accounting Officer of the House; and a party claiming such assistance shall

(a) furnish that Officer with a statement of the facts on which the claim is based;
(b) certify to that Officer that the expenses in respect of which the assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to the party's Parliamentary business; and
(c) as soon as practicable after each 31st March following the passing of this Resolution, furnish that Officer with the certificate of an independent professional auditor to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party claimed financial assistance during the period ending with that day were incurred as mentioned in paragraph (b) above.

4.—(1) In the case of any year in which there is a General Election

(a) the period ending immediately before the date of the Election and
(b) the period beginning with that date,

shall be treated for the purposes of paragraphs 1(1) and (2), 2(1) to (3) and 3 above as separate periods.

(2) In relation to any such separate period

(a) the first relevant amount and the second relevant amount for that period shall be a proportionate part (rounded to the nearest penny) of the first relevant amount and the second relevant amount for the year in question; and


(b) the available amount for that period shall be a proportionate part (rounded to the nearest pound) of the available amount for the year in question.

(3) In relation to any such separate period ending immediately before the date of the Election, paragraph 3(c) above shall have effect as if the 31st March referred to were a reference to the day immediately before the date of the Election.

(4) In this paragraph "year" means a year beginning with 1st April.

5. The cost of providing financial assistance shall be borne on the House of Commons: Members' salaries etc. Vote.

Clinical Waste Incineration (Letchworth)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjoum.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Oliver Heald: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise an issue of great concern to my constituents in Letchworth. The issue also concerns the residents of Stotfold and Arlesey in Bedfordshire. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) has asked me to say that he supports the concerns which I will outline tonight. My right hon. Friend's constituents attended a recent meeting where between 500 and 600 people objected to a clinical waste incineration plant which is being proposed for Letchworth.
The Hertfordshire county council is presently considering the application for permission to build the clinical waste incinerator in Stotfold road close to a school and a housing estate. I have never known the people of Letchworth to be so united as they are in opposing the proposal.
I have lived in this constituency for many years, and the people of Letchworth are outraged at the idea. Letchworth was the world's first garden city. Conceived by Ebenezer Howard in 1903, it has gone on to become a milestone of town planning, with designated areas for each and every activity—shopping, housing, industrial development and agriculture, all in a leafy garden environment. That vision has now reached its final realisation, and there are 30,000 residents.
Because of this legacy, Letchworth has large areas of green belt comprising more than 50 per cent. of the town—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjornment of the House lapsed, without Question put,

Motion made, and Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Heald: Because of its legacy, Letchworth is seen by town planners the world over as a paradigm and it has been much imitated. To the people of Letchworth the green belt is a vital protective barrier for its heritage, a fact recognised by this House in the 1962 legislation that set up the Letchworth garden city corporation to be a guardian of Letchworth's heritage. Because of the supervisory role of the Department, I know that the Minister is aware of the work that the corporation has done over the years to protect Letchworth from the wrong sort of development. The corporation adamantly opposes the planning proposal that is before Hertfordshire county council.
Equally, North Hertfordshire district council has a long-standing policy of defending the green belt around Letchworth. It received the initial application; it rejected it, with the support of every civic group in the town.
Two public meetings have been packed to the doors. More than 1,000 people attended, a large petition was presented to the county council, and a petition to the House of Commons will be presented in due course.
I have received numerous letters which I have passed on to the Minister in which local people set out their concerns. By way of expressing their flavour, I would like to read out a letter sent me by two young people from Letchworth:
Dear Mr. Heald,


Darren and I have made up a rap because we want you to know how we feel about the incinerator. We don't want the incinerator anywhere near Letchworth.

This is a rap for Oliver Heald,
They're going to build an incinerator on the field,
On the field there are some trees
Houses and people, all of these
We want to keep our town nice and clean,
So don't bring an incinerator on this green.
You'll poison the trees so don't do it!
If you care about nature, don't build an incinerator."

I have also had letters from local doctors. This one was from one of the largest practices in Letchworth:
We, the undersigned, being the partners and employees of this group practice, wish to inform you that we are all very strongly opposed to the proposal to build a waste disposal incinerator so close to Letchworth Garden City. We oppose this on environmental, health and historic grounds and we feel that this proposal should be immediately abandoned.
I have had many other letters like it.
Why are the people of Letchworth so opposed to the incinerator? From the school and the housing estate next to the proposed scheme, there is a view across a green valley. That view will be interrupted by a 75 ft chimney and a large laundry building, and it is suggested that steam and other emissions will also cloud the view, thereby destroying part of the green belt barrier around the town.
Secondly, there will be increased traffic and noise. Residents are aware of the experience of Hillingdon, where a similar plant has caused an outcry resulting in a petition to, and a debate in, this House.

Mr. Michael Shersby: In support of my hon. Friend, I have the misfortune to have a hospital incinerator in my constituency, which is operated by Clinical Energy. It is a most unsuitable activity for a residential area, which results in noise, a considerable increase in traffic caused by large lorries delivering clinical waste and my constituents being unable to sit in their gardens to enjoy quiet summer evenings. It also results in emissions that can lead to atmospheric pollution. All those matters should be of concern to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. I have made numerous representations to HMIP on behalf of a group of my constituents who call themselves Residents Against Incinerator Nuisance, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows.
My hon. Friend has my strongest possible support in opposing that especial activity. The incineration of clinical waste should he carried out well away from residential areas.

Mr. Heald: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for setting that scene. I do not want my constituents to suffer that sort of nuisance, noise and health worry, and that is why I have brought the matter to the attention of the House.
It is fair to point out that, although the people who set up such clinical waste facilities are often the first to say that they are as safe as can be, they do not live next to such facilities and do not have the misery of being in their garden in summer while steam belches from a nearby chimney. The House should seriously consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that there should be some scheme that keeps such facilities away from residential areas where there are schools and, in this case, also an educational farm.
There is also cause to worry because there is considerable uncertainty about the health implications of such facilities. The Royal Commission on Environmental Waste, under Sir John Houghton, reported in May:

We believe it is right nevertheless to continue to maintain a cautious and questioning attitude towards the possibility of health effects from incineration plants
If there is that need for a cautious and questioning attitude towards the possible health effects of such incineration plants, they should not be sited in areas near to housing estates or where young children go to school.
The Hillingdon plant to which my hon. Friend referred has not met the standards for emissions of dioxin set by the HMIP. That plant has been put forward in the planning application as the direct comparator—the reference site. When the royal commission considered the question, it admitted that it did not have a full understanding of the effects of highly toxic dioxin on humans. It recommended that, as further evidence on the toxicity of dioxin becomes available, its implications should be kept under continuing surveillance by the chief medical officers. In the light of that uncertainty, surely there should be a policy to site incineration plants away from housing areas.
My constituents and I are looking for three responses. We want the county council to reject the planning application. It has said that the green belt is not an overriding issue in the application. To the objectors and me that is an unsustainable argument. The idea of a green belt is to protect the heritage of towns such as Letchworth—a garden city or something special—and also to guard the countryside surrounding it. If the green belt is not an overriding issue in a town such as Letchworth—a town planning model that is copied the world over—how can it ever be an issue that will have overriding importance?
I see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who supports the objectors in Stotfold and Arlesey who have recently protested about the scheme, is in his place.
If the county council will not reject the scheme, the Secretary of State should call in the application so that there can be a full public inquiry to examine the issues that I have raised, and national issues. Those are issues such as: should the green belt be allowed to be breached in such circumstances; should incineration plants which deal with chemical waste and which give rise to uncertainties about health implications be built close to houses?
I ask the Minister to comment on the national situation in the context of clinical waste schemes and their future planning. We know that county councils are being encouraged to formulate waste plans, but they seem to be slow in doing it. Councillors seemed keen for Hertfordshire county council to decide that the green belt at Letchworth should not be an overriding consideration. One wonders what the county councillors were thinking at the time. Perhaps they were thinking, "It won't be in my part of Hertfordshire."
The strategic view must be that clinical waste incineration will be carried out away from houses and not in a green belt, and that it will be carried out safely. The Minister should comment on that and on current progress, so that other towns do not suffer the agony that Letchworth and villages close by are going through while waiting for the result of the application.
The people of Letchworth say a resounding no to this application. The people of the neighbouring villages say the same, and so do I. The application will be fought tooth and nail and will be resisted in every possible way. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and the county council will take that message on board.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) has raised issues of understandable concern to his constituents over proposals for a clinical waste incinerator at Letchworth, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. I am sure that my comments will also interest my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who is the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). My right hon. and learned Friend has raised similar concerns on behalf of his constituents. As was evident from the interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) these issues extend beyond Hertfordshire.
The proposal for a clinical waste incinerator at Letchworth is the subject of an application for planning permission which is currently before Hertfordshire county council. It has the responsibility for determining applications involving waste disposal matters, rather than district or borough councils which normally have responsibility for deciding all other applications for planning permission.
The application has been made by Blue Circle Waste Management Ltd and it involves the erection of a 12 m high building with a 25 m chimney on land at Letchworth sewage works. I understand that the incinerator is intended to burn medical waste—including low-level radioactive waste, seized materials—such as drugs—and confidential waste, which is authorised through Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
I understand that Hertfordshire Liberal Democrat county council has requested further information from the applicants about the proposed incinerator, and more particularly about the potential environmental impact of this type of development in the location proposed. The applicants are now considering that request. The application is still at a comparatively early stage.
It might be helpful to explain the framework of land use that is provided by the town and country planning system. That aims to secure the most efficient and effective use of land in the public interest, and to ensure that service facilities such as roads, schools and sewers are built where they are needed.
Planning decisions on proposals to build land or to change its use are usually made by the local authorities. We believe that it is appropriate that decisions should normally be taken at the local level. It is therefore important that local authorities fulfil their responsibilities and take decisions on local planning matters, even if these may be difficult.
Such decisions should be rational and consistent. They must also be considered against the policies adopted by the authority after public consultation on its local plan. Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 introduced by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 requires decisions to be in accordance with the development plan, unless material consideration indicate otherwise. Therefore, the development plan is, and will increasingly become, an important document.
Development plans set out the local planning authority's policies and the proposals for the development and use of land in its area. There is a cascade of planning policy guidance from national and regional guidance to the county structure plan and ultimately the district-wide local plan. Therefore, the development plan provides a clear

guide to prospective applicants for planning permission to the kinds of development that will or will not be permitted during the plan period. Both county structure and district-wide local plans involve the public through consultation at all stages of the plan preparation process.
For most local plans, a public local inquiry is held to consider objections to the local planning authority's published proposals before an independent inspector appointed by, but not accountable to, the Secretary of State. The inspector reports to the local authority, and its published decisions based on this advice are subject to further public consultation. That ensures that the local plan has been prepared with full local participation and helps to give confidence to local people in the consistency of planning decisions.
I was particularly pleased to see that North Hertfordshire district council has recently adopted the latest alteration to its local plan and is already making good progress with a further revision to extend the plan period. In general circumstances, planning decisions are taken against the background of the local plan. However, as I said, decisions on waste disposal are taken strategically by the county council.
Provision for waste disposal facilities also need to be planned at a strategic level. My hon. Friend is right. If decisions are taken at a strategic level, there must be a strategic plan. Such decisions cannot be taken on an ad hoc basis, and that is why it is right for county councils to have a proper strategic waste plan, just as, where they have other responsibilities—for example, for minerals—it must be right that they have a comprehensive plan for those.
I urge every local authority that has responsibility for strategic waste plans to ensure that its plans are up to date. Waste regulation authorities are required, under the Environmental Protection Act, 1990 to draw up separate waste disposal plans which consider the need for waste facilities within their areas and the technical aspects of possible methods of treatment and disposal. Planning authorities are required to have regard to the waste disposal plan in drawing up development plans, so that they reflect the need for adequate and appropriate waste facilities. Again, it is important that there is an effective waste disposal plan. Without one to cover the whole county, it is difficult for the district authorities to have their development plans in place.
I appreciate that plans for waste incinerators can lead to concerns among local residents that it is understandable that they should seek assurances about safety and the impact of their neighbourhood. Therefore, I understand why that has prompted my hon. Friend's constituents to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to call in the application for his own determination and hold a public inqury.
It might be helpful if I explain that the Secretary of State usually intervenes in the determination of planning applications very selectively. We continue to be very selective about calling in cases for our decision, and applications will in general be called in only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those that could have wide effects beyond their immediate locality and which give rise to substantial regional or national controversy.
The fact that a planning application is highly controversial locally is not of itself a justification for the Secretary of State to call it in. Parliament has charged local authorities with the responsibility for development control


along with many other important administrative decisions. It must be right that, as far as possible, local authorities discharge the responsibility that has been given to them by Parliament.
Local authorities are democratically elected organisations, accountable to their electorate for their decisions. We consider that it would imply unnecessary central control if a large number of decisions on planning applications were taken by the Secretary of State rather than the local authority. The Secretary of State will therefore intervene only where there are compelling reasons to do so.
It may be helpful if I say that, during the past few years, the number of matters that have been called in by the Secretary of State for his own decision has averaged about 100 a year—about two a week. While the Secretary of State may have a role to play where applications are referred to him as a departure from the development plan, he will not intervene on planning applications simply because the local planning authority finds the decision difficult, complex or of local controversy. He will only exercise his reserve powers of intervention sparingly, where there are compelling and wider reasons to do so.
As far as the present application is concerned, I will of course keep in close touch with developments. It is only right that the county council should be given the opportunity to exercise its responsibility as planning authority and to consider all aspects of the scheme before the Secretary of State considers whether he should intervene. If, after considering all the information, the county council is minded to approve the application, it may refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan. In those circumstances, as in all circumstances where cases are referred to us as a departure from the development plan, the Secretary of State will consider very carefully whether it is an application which would be appropriate for him to call in.
There are many reasons why an application might be a departure from the development plan. In this case, there may well be green belt considerations. Alternatively, should the county council refuse to grant permisssion, the applicants would have a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State against the decision.
In those circumstances, I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on the merits of the application or the issues involved, because to do so might prejudice any decision that might be taken by my right hon. Friend—for example, whether to call in the application at some period during the process. If the county council were to refuse it and it came before the Secretary of State on appeal, obviously it is important that his decision should in no way have been prejudiced earlier.
It may be helpful if I say a little about waste management, because, as we learn more about the environment and the balance that needs to be maintained between our activities and the earth's ecosystem, we recognise the need to maintain at the highest level the

environmental and health standards to be achieved by our industries. That applies to the waste management industry as much as to any other industry.
Incineration standards are stringent, as are those for landfill. The new system of integrated pollution control introduced under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 covers larger incineration plants of all types. The incineration of specific types of waste, and all incinerators rated at 1 tonne an hour or more are controlled by HMIP. The integrated pollution control system also allows authorisations to be periodically reviewed to ensure that operators are incorporating technical advances in their pollution control system.
In the past, most hospital waste has been dealt with by incinerators located within the hospital grounds. With the closure of many old hospital incinerators, hospitals are having to consider the most appropriate means of disposal for the considerable quantities of clinical waste that are being produced and that is leading to further consideration being given to other methods of treatment, including autoclaving and microwaving, which are capable of rendering safe some types of infectious hospital waste.
For many types of hospital waste, however, incineration will remain the most appropriate disposal method. The high standards required for incinerators generally apply equally to incinerators burning clinical waste. All incinerators will be required to meet the stringent standards currently in force under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which are rigorously enforced by HMIP.
Of course I heard the comments of my hon. Friend for Uxbridge and I will certainly ensure that HMIP investigates the concern he has raised this evening. It is obviously of vital importance that, if there is the statutory framework of the Environmental Protection Act and a regulatory body, HMIP, with responsibility for these matters, there is public confidence that the statutory framework and regulatory authority are delivering that which Parliament has entrusted them to deliver.
I am satisfied that, in addition to the planning process, adequate legislative safeguards are in place to ensure proper implementation and operation of this type of development under the Environmental Protection Act through the authorisation by HMIP.
I make those comments without prejudice to the particular application that is of concern to my hon. Friend. However, I consider it wholly proper that the proposals for a clinical waste incinerator at Letchworth should be fully considered by Hertfordshire county council. Parliament has given the responsibility of determining the application to Hertfordshire county council which must consider the application fully before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decides whether he should call in the application.
My hon. Friend can assure his constituents that I will continue to monitor progress on this application very carefully and stand ready to intervene at the appropriate time should the need arise.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.